new teacher induction programs: a case study of an
TRANSCRIPT
Loyola University Chicago Loyola University Chicago
Loyola eCommons Loyola eCommons
Dissertations Theses and Dissertations
2014
New Teacher Induction Programs: A Case Study of an Exemplary New Teacher Induction Programs: A Case Study of an Exemplary
School District and How It Prepares Its New Teachers for the Use School District and How It Prepares Its New Teachers for the Use
of Instructional Technology in the Classroom of Instructional Technology in the Classroom
David Brian Sherman Loyola University Chicago
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss
Part of the Educational Leadership Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Sherman, David Brian, "New Teacher Induction Programs: A Case Study of an Exemplary School District and How It Prepares Its New Teachers for the Use of Instructional Technology in the Classroom" (2014). Dissertations. 915. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/915
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2014 David Brian Sherman
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO
NEW TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAMS:
A CASE STUDY OF AN EXEMPLARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND HOW IT
PREPARES ITS NEW TEACHERS FOR THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
PROGRAM IN ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION
BY
DAVID B. SHERMAN
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
MAY 2014
Copyright by David B. Sherman, 2014
All rights reserved.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
While only one name is written on the cover page of a doctoral
dissertation, there is no possible way one person could complete such a
demanding and challenging undertaking without the guidance, assistance,
support, and encouragement of those around him. For me, there are many
people who have provided such benefaction.
First, to my parents, Jack and Lonnie Sherman, I wish to thank you for
instilling in me a love for the field of education, for modeling the importance of a
solid, highly principled work ethic, and for demonstrating confidence that I
could persevere through this process. To my amazing wife, Sally, who is my
very best friend in the whole world, and who has been my inspiration to be the
best student I could possibly be. I will forever be grateful for your
understanding and patience during four long years of graduate school. Finally,
to my daughters, Marni and Gillian, whom I hope will follow their own
educational paths as far as possible. Thank you for your understanding of all the
nights and weekends I was sitting in class or at my computer instead of being
home with you.
iv
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Marla Israel, my
dissertation chair, who demonstrated amazing patience, extensive knowledge,
and insightful guidance throughout the entire dissertation-writing process. I will
forever be indebted to Dr. Israel for inspiring me to always dig deeper, think
harder, and write more clearly.
In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation
committee members, Dr. Janis Fine of Loyola University Chicago for asking the
tough questions and providing me with the motivation to keep me moving
forward and Dr. Eric Twadell of Adlai Stevenson High School for providing
encouragement and insights that helped me carve a path toward inspired
learning.
Finally, I would like to thank the dozens of administrators and Generation
Y teachers who participated in this study, the Deerfield Public Schools for
supporting me throughout this endeavor, and my friends in the Loyola-Deerfield
Cohort who kept me laughing, learning, and loving the work I do.
Accomplishing this dissertation is something I could not have imagined
while growing up as the languid, disorganized, and silly student that I was.
Without all of the aforementioned people, I would not have been able to live this
dream.
To Sally, my biggest supporter, my best friend,
and the most intuitive person I’ve ever met.
LYT!
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
Technology in Schools ......................................................................................... 1
Generation Y ......................................................................................................... 4
Teacher Retention ................................................................................................ 6
Research Purpose ................................................................................................. 8
Research Questions .............................................................................................. 9
Significance of the Study to the Field of Educational Leadership .............. 10
Proposed Methodology ..................................................................................... 19
Proposed Areas of Related Literature ............................................................. 25
Limitations ......................................................................................................... 28
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................... 32
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 32
New Teacher Induction ..................................................................................... 33
Pre-Service Preparation ......................................................................... 33
The Need for New Teacher Induction ............................................... 36
Components of New Teacher Induction ........................................... 41
State Standards for New Teacher Induction ...................................... 47
Illinois ..................................................................................................... 51
Generation Y Teachers ...................................................................................... 54
Characteristics of Generation Y .......................................................... 56
Generation Y Teachers' Use of Technology ....................................... 60
Professional Development for Generation Y Teachers ..................... 62
The Use of Instructional Technology in Schools ........................................... 65
Why Use Technology in Schools? ........................................................ 65
To What End or Purpose? ..................................................................... 71
vii
How the Nebraska Rubric Relates ....................................................... 73
How the Illinois New Teacher Induction Standards Relate ............ 73
Summary ............................................................................................................. 75
III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 77
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 77
Case Study Research Methodology and Design ............................................ 78
Site Selection and Participants ........................................................................ 81
Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures .............................................. 85
Data Collection Procedures and Proposed Timeline .................................... 90
Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................. 95
Significance of the Study ................................................................................. 102
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 103
Summary ........................................................................................................... 106
IV. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ...................................................................... 108
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 108
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 110
Description of the School District Being Studied ........................................ 111
The District ............................................................................................ 111
The Students ......................................................................................... 112
The Staff ................................................................................................. 113
District Finances ................................................................................... 114
Results from the Semi-Structured Administrator Interviews ................... 115
Data Collection Summary from the Semi-Structured Interviews ............. 180
Artifact Collection ............................................................................................ 191
Observational Data .......................................................................................... 196
Generation Y Online Survey ........................................................................... 206
Summary ........................................................................................................... 255
V. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .................................................................................. 258
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 258
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 262
Research Question 1 ............................................................................ 262
Research Question 2 ............................................................................ 287
Research Question 3 ............................................................................ 301
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................. 307
Recommendations for Further Research ...................................................... 310
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................... 313
viii
APPENDIX
A. SAMPLE EMAIL REQUEST FOR LIST OF EXEMPLARY DISTRICTS ........ 318
B. RETC DOCUMENT .............................................................................................. 320
C. TEACHER SURVEY QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 326
D. SEMI-STRUCTURED ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ......... 335
E. LETTER OF COOPERATION - DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT ................... 338
F. LETTER OF COOPERATION - DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR ..................... 342
G. SCRIPT FOR TELEPHONE INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE –
SUPERINTENDENT .............................................................................................. 346
H. EMAIL SOLICITING ADMINISTRATOR PARTICIPATION
INTERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 349
I. EMAIL SOLICITING TEACHER PARTICIPATION – SURVEY .................... 352
J. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT FOR TRANSCRIPTION
SERVICES ................................................................................................................ 355
K. ILLINOIS STANDARDS OF NEW TEACHER INDUCTION ......................... 357
REFERENCE LIST ........................................................................................................ 369
VITA ............................................................................................................................... 379
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Rubric for Essential Technology Conditions (RETC) ......................................... 14
2. New Teacher Center - Five Phases of New Teacher Induction ......................... 46
3. Current U.S. Generations ........................................................................................ 55
4. Data Collection Timeline ........................................................................................ 91
5. Administrator Demographic Information ............................................................ 94
6. RETC List of Codes .................................................................................................. 99
7. List of Codes – Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for
Beginning Teacher Induction Programs ............................................................. 100
8. Percentages of Student Ethnicity ......................................................................... 113
9. Administrator Demographic Data....................................................................... 116
10. Summary of Responses from District-level Administrators to Interview
Questions ................................................................................................................. 180
11. Summary of Responses from Principals to Interview Questions ................... 186
12. Descriptive Notes from Mentor Meeting, October 3, 2013 .............................. 198
13. Descriptive Notes from New Teacher Meeting, October 10, 2013 .................. 201
14. Descriptive Notes from New Teacher Meeting, November 7, 2013 ............... 204
15. Responses to Question 11 University Preparation in Technology ................. 217
16. Responses to Question 27 – Reasons for Rating NTI Technology PD ............ 233
17. Quality of Tech PD During First Year in the District ........................................ 241
18. Q37 - What New Teachers Need in the Area of Instructional Technology ... 251
19. Q38 – Summary of PD Needs with Technology ................................................ 253
20. Meeting or Not Meeting Illinois New Teacher Induction Standards
(*not including instructional technology) .......................................................... 278
21. Teacher Readiness to Incorporate Tech into their Classrooms at the
Beginning of their Careers .................................................................................... 285
22. The amount of Assistance Given New Teachers is/is Not Enough ................ 285
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Data Triangulation ................................................................................................... 25
2. Data Triangulation ................................................................................................... 75
3. Data Triangulation ................................................................................................. 102
4. Three Methods of Data Collection ....................................................................... 111
5. Q1 – New Teachers by Year in the District ........................................................ 208
6. Q2 – Comparison of New Teachers by Gender ................................................. 208
7. Q3 – Range of Birth Years for New Teachers ..................................................... 209
8. Q4 – New Teachers’ College Degrees Attained ................................................. 210
9. Q5 – Range of Levels Taught by New Teachers ................................................ 211
10. Q6 – New Teachers’ Number of Years in this District ...................................... 212
11. Q7 – New Teachers’ Status in the District .......................................................... 213
12. Q8 – New Teachers’ Who Have Made Teaching Their First Career .............. 214
13. Q9 – New Teachers’ Rating of Their Personal Use of Technology ................. 215
14. Q10 – New Teachers’ Rating of Their Professional Use of Technology ......... 216
15. Q12 – Student Access to Technology in Classrooms ........................................ 219
16. Q13 – Level of Technology Tools in Classrooms ............................................... 220
17. Q14 & Q15 – Comparison of Technology Use by New Teachers and
Their Students ......................................................................................................... 221
18. Q16 – Areas in Which New Teachers Use Technology .................................... 222
19. Q17 – Students Using Technology to Work Collaboratively ........................... 223
20. Q18 – Students Using Technology for Evaluating and Analyzing ................. 224
21. Q19 – Students Using Technology for Communicating with the Global
Community ............................................................................................................. 225
22. Q20 – Ways in Which New Teachers Use Tech in Classrooms ....................... 226
23. Q21 – Student-Centered Learning Opportunities ............................................. 227
24. Q22 – Facilitator to Collaborate with External Entities .................................... 228
25. Q23 – The Integration of Tech on a Daily Basis ................................................. 229
26. Q24 – Sequential Programs of Study in Tech ..................................................... 230
27. Q25 – Student Participation with Outside Organizations ............................... 231
28. Q26 – Ratings of the New Teacher Induction Program .................................... 232
xi
29. Q28 – Areas of Technology PD Received During NTI Meetings .................... 236
30. Q29 – How much PD New Teachers Received During First Year .................. 238
31. Q30 – Quality of Tech PD New Teachers Received During First Year .......... 240
32. Q32 – Those Who Provided PD During First Year ........................................... 243
33. Q33 & Q34 – Comparison of Instructional Tech Support from School
and District Administrators .................................................................................. 245
34. Q35 – New Teachers’ Understanding of Tech Use at the End of
Year One ................................................................................................................. 247
35. Q36 – New Teachers’ Ability to Mentor Others After One Year of
Teaching ................................................................................................................. 248
36. Q37 – How New Teachers Learn Best ................................................................. 250
37. Data Triangulation ................................................................................................. 262
xii
ABSTRACT
This research study examined Generation Y new teachers, the process of
new teacher induction, and the most effective methods for providing
professional development in instructional technology for Generation Y teachers.
The main research questions for this paper were as follows:
1. What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in the area of instructional technology?
2. What recommendations should be made for school districts in order
for them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best
uses of instructional technology?
3. What are the implications for school leaders?
This was a qualitative case study of one school district considered
exemplary in the use of technology. Four areas of data collection were utilized
during this study including semi-structured interviews of administrators, an
online survey of Generation Y new teachers, a collection of artifacts related to
new teacher induction, and observations of new teacher and mentor meetings.
Participation in this study was voluntary and included the completion of a
“Letter of Cooperation” by all administrators and teachers. Data collected
during the study were analyzed through the conceptual frameworks of the
Nebraska Rubric for Essential Technology Conditions (RETC) and the Illinois
xiii
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs
(2008).
This study concluded that the school district under review has developed
a new teacher induction program that meets all but one of the Illinois standards.
In addition, this study concluded that that the Generation Y teachers in this
school district do not feel as if they have received enough or the proper types of
training in the use of technology in their classrooms upon the start of their
teaching careers. This research study further teased out the need for instructional
technology training based on the specific characteristics of Generation Y new
teachers.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Technology in Schools
The need for and use of computers and the Internet in schools has risen
dramatically over the last 15 years. In a survey of technology use in public
schools in 2009, the National Center for Education Statistics (Gray, Thomas,
Lewis & Tice, 2010) reported that 97% of teachers had one or more computers
located in the classroom every day, while 54% could bring computers into the
classroom. Internet access was available for 93% of the computers located in the
classroom every day and for 96% of the computers that could be brought into the
classroom. The ratio of students to computers in the classroom every day was 5.3
to 1 (Gray, Thomas, Lewis, & Tice, 2010).
The United States Department of Education's 2010 Blueprint for Reform
identified technology as a component of a complete education and emphasized
the need to invest in “evidence-based instructional models and supports”
(Duncan & Martin, 2010, p. 4). Inan and Lowther (2010) reported that in an effort
to improve student learning and better prepare them for the future workforce,
2
almost every school has Internet access and about one computer per every four
students. According to the Digest of Educational Statistics (2009), the percentage
of instructional rooms with internet access increased from 51% in 1998 to 94% in
2005 (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Over the past decade, substantial resources have
gone toward equipping K-12 schools with the technology necessary to ensure
success for all students in the information age. For instance, the ratio of students
to computers decreased from 12:1 in 1999 to 4.4:1 in 2003 in the United States
(Parsad, Jones & Greene, 2005).
Across the United States, school districts are spending billions of dollars
annually to purchase the most recent, cutting edge computer hardware,
networking, and site licenses for students and staff. The Executive Office of the
President's Council of Economic Advisors (2011) reported that the amount spent
on computer-assisted learning and network-enabled technologies in education
was $59.8 billion dollars nationwide.
However, the billions of dollars that are spent on technology for the
classrooms will not improve the teachers' instruction or the students'
achievement if school districts do not place a high value on teacher professional
development in the use of these technologies. Petrie and McGee (2012) write that
“Professional development (PD) for teachers is recognised as a key vehicle
3
through which to improve teaching and, in turn, to improve student
achievement" (p. 59). Professional development is also a way to introduce
curriculum and pedagogical reforms (Carr et al., 2000). A growing body of
international research (Lieberman & Miller, 2008; O’Sullivan & Deglau, 2006;
Richardson & Placier, 2001) has resulted in guidelines to support developers and
deliverers of PD to understand what constitutes effective PD and approaches
that are most likely to lead to improvements in teacher and school practices.
As the Information Age continues to evolve, digital media literacy
continues to rise in importance as a key skill in almost every profession (Johnson,
Levine, Smith, & Stone, 2010). Social media technologies are becoming pervasive
in work environments, and knowledge of their affordances, applications, and
uses is becoming increasingly important. In classrooms, new media technologies
underscore every part of students’ lives as tools for social networking, online
collaboration, and media sharing are all rapidly maturing and becoming
integrated in education and recreation activities (Hovorka & Rees, 2009).
Educational administrators must recognize the importance of high-quality
training in the proper use of instructional technology and in the infusion of these
tools into the teachers' instructional practices. In a study of technology-related
teacher professional development (TTPD), Walker et al. (2012) found that
4
teachers in two different TTPD designs benefited, with large self-reported gains
in the five knowledge constructs measured. These results support the literature
arguing that professional development can have positive influences on teacher’s
knowledge and skills (Borko, 2004). Moreover, teachers’ technological
knowledge as well as integrated forms of pedagogical content knowledge and
technological-pedagogical content knowledge also showed gains (Walker, 2012).
Therefore, school districts have a responsibility to train their teachers to embed
technology into all aspects of their teaching and to expect teachers to change or
improve their instruction so that the students receive the full benefits of
technology-rich classrooms.
Generation Y
This is especially true for new teachers who are beginning their teaching
careers. The postulation that new teachers are ready to embed technology into
their instruction because they are "digital natives" who were born in and have
grown up in an age of technology (Prensky, 2001) is presumptuous at best.
According to Rebore and Walmsley (2010), the current group of new teachers
entering the profession is considered a part of "Generation Y." These are teachers
who were born between the late 1970s and mid 1990s to Baby Boomer parents.
They are digital natives who grew up with technology, and they are considered
5
to make up the majority of the new teachers in the next 10-15 years. Generation
Y teachers tend to exhibit the following characteristics. They:
Communicate more through technology than in person;
Value benefits at work;
Seek career advancement, desire flexibility and higher pay;
Work in teams and possess high energy;
Work hard but also enjoy pleasure;
Can be financially savvy;
Want constant feedback;
Work among and with a diverse group of individuals;
Multitask proficiently; and
Like change (Rebore & Walmsley, 2010).
"Many Generation Y teachers were recently Generation Y students who
were deeply connected to their parents. Many relied on e-mail and cell phones
to communicate daily with their parents" (Tapscott, 1998, p. 23). Rebore and
Walmsley (2010) state that “Probably the starkest difference between Generation
Y and any other generation is the large, available access to information” (p. 5).
The people of Generation Y acknowledge that knowledge is power, and they
believe that all knowledge can be found quickly through the Internet (Wong &
Wong, n.d.). Understanding these tendencies is important for school
administrators because Generation Y teachers bring these unique skill sets to
their schools. School leaders must appreciate this group's needs in order to hire
and then retain the most highly qualified new teachers for their districts.
6
Teacher Retention
Another issue facing school leaders is the high level of turnover of
teachers. The literature on teacher labor markets finds that teacher shortages
result not from problems with the number of teachers who are trained or
certified but rather from the attrition of these individuals out of the teaching
profession (Behrstock & Clofford, 2009). This teacher turnover situation is often
referred to as a “revolving door” (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Ingersoll,
2003) or a “leaky bucket” (National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, 2007a).
In particular, new-teacher attrition rates are as high as 50% in some areas
despite the growing need for more teachers in the field (Ingersoll, 2003). Other
researchers also have found that nearly 50% of new teachers are leaving the
profession after five years (Watlington, Shockley, Guglielmino & Felsher, 2010).
The consequences of teacher attrition have been documented by numerous
researchers which is of primary concern to educational leaders and policymakers
(Barnes, Crowe, & Schaefer 2007; Ingersoll & Smith 2003; Minarik, Thorton, &
Perreault 2003).
In his article "New-Teacher Induction 2.0" Greg Taranto (2011) provides
evidence through his research that effective new teacher induction programs
7
have been successful in reducing the number of new teachers leaving the
profession. Comprehensive new teacher induction should include a combination
of mentoring, professional development and support, and formal assessments for
new teachers, typically during their first two years of teaching (Wiebke & Bardin,
2009). The work of Kelley (2004) demonstrated that new teacher induction does
indeed matter, and that a meaningful induction experience has lasting effects on
teacher quality and teacher retention. Kelley writes that “Policy makers and
school district personnel should use this and other induction research to craft
and refine their induction programs and mitigate serious attrition issues. Now
more than ever, district, state, and national policy makers must take a hard look
at longstanding practices that have driven promising teachers out of the
profession and that threaten the quality of our future teacher workforce”(p. 447).
Bartlett and Johnson (2009) examined numerous research studies on new
teacher induction programs, including one that suggested that new teachers
participating in more intensive mentoring induction programs had higher scores
on measures of teaching practice in areas such as classroom atmosphere,
instruction/content, management, and student engagement (Stanulis & Floden,
2009).
8
Additionally, Bartlett and Johnson (2009) found research literature that
illustrates some universal truths about induction. The first is that induction
matters. In particular, the form and quantity of induction is related to both
retention and satisfaction. Recognizing and specifying these elements in policy
promises to improve the overall effectiveness of induction policy. In addition, the
contention that local and professional context matter appears to be also true—
though this lends itself less to policy specificity except to specify a need to leave
room for local adaptability. Scholars have argued for targeted induction that
addresses the curriculum and learning needs of new teachers with regard to
instructional practice (Achinstein & Athanases, 2000; Feiman-Nemser, 2001;
Strong, 2005) and suggest that policies regarding induction make significant
increases in teacher knowledge and student achievement (Darling-Hammond,
2000).
Research Purpose
The purpose of this dissertation is to deeply study one school district that
is exemplary in the use of instructional technology to enhance teachers' planning,
instruction, and assessment, and to determine how this school district trains its
Generation Y teachers in the use of technology, and to make recommendations to
educational leaders as to the best plans for teacher induction in the area of
9
educational technology. The ultimate goal of a successful new teacher induction
program is to retain the very best new teachers in the field of education.
According to Breaux and Wong (2003), "New teachers must be trained if we want
them to succeed; it is much better to train new teachers and risk losing them than
not to train them and risk keeping them" (p. v). In addition, "An induction
process is the best way to send a message to your teachers, a message that you
value them and want them to succeed and stay" (Breaux & Wong, 2003, p. v).
This dissertation will address the issues of instructional technology competencies
as related to new teacher induction.
Research Questions
Based on the above stated purposes, the main research questions for this
paper are as follows:
1. What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in order for them to appropriately utilize
technology in their planning, instruction, and assessment?
2. What recommendations should be made for all school districts in order
for them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best
uses of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment?
10
3. What are the implications for school leaders?
Significance of the Study to the Field of Educational Leadership
A study such as this one can have a significant impact on educational
leadership in three distinct areas: (1.) Educational technology planning and
assessment; (2.) General new teacher induction plans; (3.) New teacher induction
planning for educational technology to be implemented by school district
leaders. Within these three broad areas, this study can assist school district staff
in:
Understanding the pillars of an exemplary technology program based
on the most current research;
Assessing a technology plan/program as compared to a common
rubric or a set of standards and compared to a school district that is
considered exemplary in the area of educational technology;
Understanding the pillars of an exemplary new teacher induction
program based on the most current research;
Assessing induction programs as compared to a common rubric or a
set of standards;
Assessing the amount and quality of the technology portion of an
induction program;
Supporting and building upon pre-service development programs that
Generation Y teachers bring to their first teaching positions;
Developing an improved new teacher induction plan for technology
instruction; and
Building capacity in district educational leaders who can provide
appropriate new teacher induction well into the future.
First, the study will provide a model for school districts in the assessment
of their own technology instruction, and it will provide school leaders with an
11
example of an exemplary district in the area of technology. The International
Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has developed research-based
standards for technology integration in schools. These are the National
Educational Technology Standards, or NETS, and they are "the standards for
evaluating the skills and knowledge educators need to teach, work, and learn in
an increasingly connected global and digital society" (International Society for
Technology in Education, 2012). As technology integration continues to increase
in society, it is paramount that teachers possess the skills and behaviors of digital
age professionals. Moving forward, teachers must become comfortable being co-
learners with their students and colleagues around the world"
(http://www.iste.org/standards). In addition, ISTE has developed the National
Educational Technology Standards for students (NETS•S) and for school
administrators (NETS•A). All of these standards revolve around research
geared to improve the use of educational technology in schools. The NETS and
the accompanying research should form the foundation for exemplary
technology use in schools, and it is beneficial for all school leaders and teachers
to have a solid understanding of them.
Another valuable document is titled "Essential Conditions" which also is
published by ISTE.org/nets. This document identifies 14 conditions that are
12
necessary to effectively leverage technology for learning. Although not designed
as a rubric, this document could be used to identify and assess areas of strength
and weakness in a school district's technology plan (ISTE, 2009). The 14 Essential
Conditions necessary to effectively leverage technology for learning are:
Shared vision
Empowered leaders
Implementation planning
Consistent and adequate funding
Equitable access
Skilled personnel
Ongoing professional learning
Technical support
Curriculum framework
Student-centered learning
Assessment and evaluation
Engaged communities
Support policies
Supportive external context
In their article "A Rubric for Self-Assessment of Essential Technology
Conditions in Schools," Steckleberg et al. (2008) describe the development of a
Web-based instrument that was part of a strategic planning initiative in
technology in K-12 schools in Nebraska. The instrument provided rubrics for
self-assessment of essential conditions necessary for the integrating and adopting
of technology. In this article, the authors conclude that "Data from the initial two
years of implementation indicate that the rubric provides a useful and reliable
13
Web-based method for the self assessment of essential conditions necessary for
integrating technology in K-12 schools" (pp. 88-89). The complete rubric can be
found at http://www.education.ne.gov/techcen/documents/NERETC.pdf (see
Appendix C). Table 1 is an abridged version of the rubric that was created by
this researcher.
This is the conceptual framework that will be used to determine the
efficacy of a district's technology plan, and it could have significant applications
for districts interested in improving their technology instruction. This rubric was
chosen based on the work of Steckelberg et al. (2008) in which the authors
studied the reliability of RETC over a two year period. They concluded that the
rubric "provides a useful and reliable Web-based method for the self-assessment
of essential conditions necessary for integrating technology in K12 schools" (pp.
88-89). This rubric provides an appropriate framework for assessing a school
district's use of technology, and it provides a descriptive categorization of the
levels of progress a school district is making in terms of instructional technology
use.
14
Table 1
Rubric for Essential Technology Conditions (RETC)
Technology
Admin and
Support
Technology
Capacity
Educator
Competencies
& Prof.
Development
Learners &
Learning
Accountability
Vision Planning
and Policy
Student
Technology
Equipment
Access
Educator Use of
Technology
Student Use of
Technology
Student
Technology
Essential
Learnings
Technology
Support
Teacher
Technology
Equipment
Access
Leadership Technology
Integration
Administrator
Technology
Competencies
Instructional
Technology
Staffing
Video Capacity Professional
Development
Available
Technology
Curriculum
Teacher
Technology
Competencies
Budget Distance
Learning;
Conditions &
Capabilities
Models of
Professional
Development
Community
Connection
Electronic Data
Support
Systems
LAN/WAN Effective Use of
Electronic Data
Support
Demonstrating
Effective Use of
Technology in
Learning
Funding Curriculum-
based tools
Content of
Technology
Training
Source: Nebraska Department of Education (2006). Nebraska Technology Plan Certification Site.
Second, new teacher induction programs are an important component in
retaining high quality teachers in a school district. On December 5, 2008, the
Illinois State Teacher Certification Board approved the Illinois Standards of Quality
and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008). The State of
15
Illinois clearly established the following goals for new teacher induction
programs:
• To provide a system for teacher induction that provides an effective
transition into teaching for first and second year teachers;
• To improve student performance through improved training,
information and assistance for beginning teachers;
• To enable beginning teachers to be effective in teaching a range of
student populations;
• To ensure success and retention of beginning teachers who show
promise of becoming highly effective professionals;
• To identify beginning teachers who need additional feedback,
assistance and training; and
• To establish an effective, coherent system of formative assessments
based on the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards. (p. 1)
The purpose of this document was to "set forth a clear framework to assist
in the development of research-based programs that meet local needs and are
responsive to local contexts. The standards are broad and interdependent,
describing a vision of a comprehensive and dynamic program for beginning
teachers and those who support them. The standards provide a research-based
foundation that will guide and support development of induction programs. The
intent of these standards is to foster thoughtful, high quality growth and
development; they become purposeful and meaningful when implemented fully
at the local level. Standards help reflect on best practices and effective structures
16
necessary to the design and delivery of high quality, effective induction
programs" (Illinois State Teacher Certification Board, 2008, p. 1).
These teacher induction standards were developed by a diverse
stakeholder group, and they were aligned to Article 21A of the Illinois School
Code. (2006) There are nine specific standards set forth by ISTCB. They are:
Standard 1: Induction Program Leadership, Administration, and Support
Standard 2: Program Goals and Design
Standard 3: Resources
Standard 4: Site Administrator Roles and Responsibilities
Standard 5: Mentor Selection and Assignment
Standard 6: Mentor Professional Development
Standard 7: Development of Beginning Teacher Practice
Standard 8: Formative Assessment
Standard 9: Program Evaluation
These standards will be used as the second conceptual framework to determine
the fidelity of a school district's new teacher induction plan. In addition, ISTCB
offers specific criteria for the development of quality new teacher induction
programs (see Appendix K). School districts in Illinois must use these standards
and the accompanying criteria when developing and assessing their new teacher
induction program.
The third impact this study will have on educational leadership is through
the case-study research on one new teacher induction program that is geared
toward technology use in the classroom. This study will detail the strengths
17
and/or weaknesses of the induction program in use by an exemplary elementary
school district, and it will provide a roadmap for other districts to follow when
developing an effective new teacher induction plan in the area of technology.
A new teacher induction program is a school district’s initial stage of its
professional development plan for its teachers. In its paper, Advancing Excellence
in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program
Standards (2003), The International Technology Education Association (ITEA)
defines professional development as a “Continuous process of lifelong learning
and growth that begins early in life, continues through the undergraduate, pre-
service experience, and extends through the in-service years” (International
Technology Education Association, 2003). In addition, “Professional
development of teachers is an ongoing process in which teachers acquire
increasingly comprehensive levels of content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and
knowledge of how students learn” (p. 40).
Ultimately, this third phase of the study should be the most important and
the most practical for school leaders. Professional development is a necessary
component for effectively integrating technology into classrooms. Smolin and
Lawless (2011) refer to Technology Integration Professional Development, or
18
TIPD, as a necessary aspect for increasing technology’s impact on classroom
practices and student learning.
Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) take this concept one step further. They
advocate that the evaluation of TIPD can facilitate changes to teaching and
learning in schools, and they maintain that although there is a strong perceived
need for action in terms of TIPD, the knowledge base derived through research
does not guide it. In particular, these authors advocate for more careful and more
systematic approaches for documenting how technology integration occurs
within schools, what increases its adoption by teachers, and the long-term
impacts that these investments have on teachers and students. Based on this,
they propose a sequential three-phase evaluation design that includes evaluation
of (1) program characteristics, (2) teacher outcomes, and (3) sustained teacher
change and student achievement effects. They maintain that these phases should
be sequential. They contend that more needs to be known about the varieties of
program structures, such as mentoring or train the trainers’ models, before
student and teacher outcomes can be evaluated.
Both the Smolin and Lawless (2011) and the Lawless and Pellegrino (2007)
articles have important implications for this research study. Professional
development in the integration of instructional technology must begin at the
19
earliest stages of a new teacher’s career, and school districts need to self-evaluate
their new teacher induction programs in the area of instructional technology.
This study will identify the components of a high-quality new teacher
induction program, it will ascertain the characteristics of a school district
considered exemplary in the use of instructional technology, and it will detail the
systematic approach that an exemplary school district should attempt to achieve
when training its Generation Y teachers in the use of technology for planning,
instruction, and assessment. If a school district has a strong technology-related
professional development plan in place, then the training of new teachers will be
an imperative component in order for this plan to remain strong and effective.
Furthermore, an added benefit of a good induction plan for new teachers is that
the information presented in this training would be infused into all areas of the
school district, including all of the teachers and administrators, thus
systematically improving the use of instructional technology throughout an
entire school district.
Proposed Methodology
This will be a qualitative, phenomenological case study based on the
definition as presented by Merriam (2009). Merriam states that "A case study is
an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system" (p. 40). By bounded
20
system, Merriam is referring to a single unit or entity where there are boundaries
to the study. For example, studying the phenomenon involving a single person,
a group, an institution, or a policy would be considered a bounded study.
Furthermore, Yin (2008) defines a case study as "an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially
when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident"
(p. 18). Based on these definitions, in an educational setting, a case study could
be about one particular program, classroom of learners, or school district.
According to Schram (2003), "phenomenology is a study of people's
conscious experience of their life-world, that is their everyday life and social
action" (p. 71). In this type of study, "The phenomenological interview is the
primary method of data collection" (Merriam, 2009, p. 25). Furthermore,
Merriam writes that a phenomenological approach is appropriate for studying
emotional and intense human experiences. In addition to individual interviews,
surveys, document reviews, and observations will be conducted to reveal the
human experiences of Generation Y teachers and whether they receive a high
quality induction program in order for them to fully embed technology into their
instruction
21
This study will focus on one school district in depth and on multiple
levels. This case study should be considered particularistic in nature because it
will focus on a particular program, and it will reveal the specificity of the
program. In this particular study, an elementary school district (pre-k through
8th grade) considered as "exemplary" in the use of technology will be selected
based on the fact that it has been recognized nationally as a leader in the use of
technology. In 1998 the district received the National School Board Association's
Institute for Transfer of Technology to Education (NSBA/ITTE) Video Salute for
creating improved teaching and learning environments using technology, and
again in 1998 it was the first recipient of the Reed Hundt Award from the
National School Board Association for excellence in the effective use of
technology. In addition, this district was the 2003 recipient of the Malcolm
Baldridge National Quality Award. Finally, the district was awarded the 2004
Technology Leadership Network Trailblazer Award.
More recently, this district has received the following accolades from the
educational community.
A seventh grade reading/language arts teacher was the 2013 recipient
of the Illinois Computing Educators (ICE) "Educator of the Year
Award" for his work embedding technology into his instruction.
22
Since 2011, 13 teachers have won the "Those Who Excel" award from
the Illinois State Board of Education, including a team of two teachers
who won for their work with assistive technology.
Nine of the district's 20 schools have been recognized by the United
States Department of Education as Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence.
Since 2011, 20 teachers have earned their National Board Certification.
Motorola Solutions Foundation has awarded nearly $110,000 to this
district in grant money to assist students who wish to further pursue
their interests in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The district's educational foundation awarded the schools with funds
to purchase iPads in May 2012.
Furthermore, in 2012 this district launched a STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) program to develop 21st century skills among all
of its middle school students.
After an extensive Internet search of national and state technology
awards, this researcher was able to find only two other awards given to Illinois
educators or school districts since 2004.
In 2006, a high school district north of Chicago won the Sylvia Charp
Award for District Innovation in Technology.
In 2007, an elementary school teacher in a northwest suburb of
Chicago was awarded the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE) Outstanding Leader Award.
Thus, the chosen school district has been singled out most recently in Illinois as
one that is exemplary in the area of instructional technology. Finally, aside from
winning some of the most recent technology awards in the State of Illinois, this
23
district is large enough to provide an excellent sampling of Generation Y teachers
and district administrators from which to survey and interview.
Data regarding the chosen district's new teacher induction program will
be collected from numerous primary sources, and these data will be studied in
relation to the hallmarks of high-quality new teacher induction programs. By
studying the induction program utilized in this school district, this researcher
will be able to develop a compelling program for new teacher induction in the
area of instructional technology. As Merriam (2009) writes, "case study has
proven particularly useful for studying educational innovations, evaluating
programs, and informing policy" (p. 51). This study will review the innovations
underway in the use of instructional technology, it will evaluate a current
exemplary program, and it will propose policy for school districts to follow when
developing new teacher induction programs.
The first step in the process was to identify a school district that is
considered exemplary in the use of instructional technology. Regional Offices of
Education throughout Illinois were contacted and asked for names of districts
that might qualify for this study. Then, out of the list that was generated, an
exemplary district was chosen for this study. This district was chosen because it
won the aforementioned awards.
24
Next, a description of the district will be developed to provide some
background. This description will include district demographics, budgets, test
scores, available computer hardware, new teacher induction plans, and
technology plans will be included in the descriptions. These details will help
develop a context in which to study the district's use of technology and its new
teacher induction process.
Third, an in-depth study of the selected district will take place. This
research will focus on the systems in place for new teacher induction at the
district, building, and classroom levels in place in this district. The following
will be used to collect data:
Documents (district level)
Timeline used for new teacher induction across the school year (district
level)
A survey of Generation Y teachers who were hired between 2010 and
2013 (classroom level)
Interviews of school-based administrators (building level)
Interviews of district administrators (district level)
Observations of new teacher induction sessions (district level).
The Figure 1 represents how these data will be triangulated.
25
Figure 1. Data Triangulation
Proposed Areas of Related Literature
The first area of related research to be studied is the standards or
hallmarks of high quality new teacher induction programs. The research in this
area will focus on the most important tenets of new teacher induction in order to
ensure the success and thus the retention of new teachers in a school district.
State boards of education, starting with Illinois and then branching out to other
states, will be studied to see if they have requirements, or minimally, suggestions
for new teacher induction programs in their states. Another portion of the
Observations and artifact reviews
Administrator Interviews
Nebraska Rubric
&
Illinois NewTeacher Induction Standards
Generation Y Teacher Surveys
26
research will be to look at the collected models of induction programs and
identify the aspects of technology that are embedded therein.
A second area of related research will be focused on the characteristics of
those teachers who are considered Generation Y. The research in this area will
be centered on the general characteristics of those considered as Generation Y,
and it will focus on the professional characteristics of Generation Y teachers. In
addition, the research will center on Generation Y teachers including their use of
technology in the classroom, their preferred method of new teacher induction,
and the implications for their future needs in the area of professional
development.
A third area of will be a study of the most current standards in place for
educational technology. As stated above, ISTE will be the first place to research.
Because these are research based standards, they will most likely lead to other
resources for study and research. A related area of research will be on state
expectations for school district technology plans. This will necessitate studying
select state boards of education for technology plan templates, including Illinois's
board of education website. Finally, for this area, research will need to be done
to find more than one appropriate rubric for assessing school district technology
27
plans. The Nebraska rubric, which has been identified above, appears to be the
most promising for this study.
The retention of the best new teachers is another crucial issue facing
school leaders. Data showing that nearly 50% of new teachers are leaving the
profession within their first five years is disconcerting (Watlington, Shockley,
Guglielmino & Felsher, 2010). Research has shown that comprehensive new
teacher induction programs have had positive effects on teacher retention
(Taranto, 2011). Within this boom of increased instructional technologies in
schools and classrooms, school leaders must do more to train new teachers in the
use of technology in their classrooms to avoid losing the best and the brightest
new teachers.
Furthermore, new teachers who are part of the Generation Y culture are
currently graduating from universities with the natural skills for using
technology in their personal lives. The question is whether they are ready to
incorporate technology into their lesson planning, instruction, and student
assessment. Ensuring that new teachers are ready to teach in technology-rich
classrooms provides a significant challenge for school leaders.
Finally, numerous studies have shown that computers and Internet use in
classrooms has grown tremendously over the last 15 years (Gray, Thomas, Lewis
28
& Tice, 2010; Parsad, Jones, & Greene, 2005; Snyder & Dillow, 2010). School
districts are investing billions of dollars in the latest hardware and infrastructure
to provide teachers with the tools to teach in a 21st century classroom (The
Executive Office of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, 2011). But
new computers in classrooms will not improve instruction unless teachers are
provided with the proper professional development in the use of instructional
technologies (Lieberman & Miller, 2008; O’Sullivan & Deglau, 2006; Petrie &
McGee, 2012; Richardson & Placier, 2001).
This study is significant for educational leaders in that it will identify the
best technology induction processes for Generation Y teachers so they can fully
embed technology into their planning, instruction, and assessment and remain in
the field of education for many years to come.
Limitations
While this study attempts to gather data on the best induction programs
for new teachers, there may be limitations to this work. First, the study of one
school district may be limiting in scope. A larger sampling of school districts
could reveal more information regarding new teacher induction programs and
their focus on instructional technology. A second limitation may be that the
researcher will find school districts or individuals who are not willing to
29
participate in such a study. With the focus on a district that is considered
exemplary in the use of technology in the classroom, the lack of participation
may be limiting in the collection of data. Another limitation could be that the
non-tenured teachers who take part in the survey may be reluctant to answer the
questions openly and honestly. Although anonymity will be guaranteed, there is
always the chance that new teachers will be hesitant to answer some of the
questions. A fourth limitation is similar to the one above in that there may be
administrators who are reluctant to answer questions openly and honestly
during the face to face interviews which will be recorded. Confidentiality will be
guaranteed, but there is still the chance that administrators may be defensive of
their induction programs or may not speak freely due to fear of ramifications. A
fifth limitation may be related to the fact that only Generation Y teachers will be
surveyed as opposed to all new teachers which would include those from the
Baby Boomer generation and Generation X. Although Generation Y teachers will
make up the majority of those participating in new teacher induction programs
in the near future, there will be others participating as well, and these other
teachers may have needs that are different than those identified for within
Generation Y.
30
Finally, with one researcher analyzing these data that will be collected,
there is always the chance for bias, especially with the researcher's current beliefs
and understandings of technology use in the classroom. Specifically, this
researcher is an elementary school principal who is considered to be a leader in
the use of technology in his work. He has conducted administrator academy and
district-level workshops on this topic, he models the use of technology within his
school community, and he expects teachers to incorporate instructional
technology into their planning, teaching, and assessing of student learning. To
help minimize such bias, the researcher will keep a journal throughout the data
collection process. The use of this journal will allow the researcher to write his
ongoing reflections regarding the potential for bias that may emerge as these
data are being collected. The objective is for the researcher to remain as unbiased
as possible while analyzing and interpreting these data.
Despite these limitations, this study, through surveys, interviews, and
other data collection methods, will present a positivist perspective on new
teacher induction in the area of instructional technology. As Merriam (2009)
writes, "A positivist orientation assumes that reality exists 'out there' and it is
observable, stable, and measurable" (p. 8). There is no doubt that most, if not all,
teachers are using technology in their classrooms, and that new teachers are
31
receiving induction training upon their initial hiring in a school district.
Educational leaders must be prepared to provide new teachers with appropriate
professional development in the use of instructional technology in their
classrooms as one important component for retaining the best and brightest new
teachers.
32
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter summarizes the literature relevant to the primary research
questions posed in this case study:
1. What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in order for them to appropriately utilize
technology in their planning, instruction, and assessment?
2. What recommendations should be made for all school districts in order
for them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best
uses of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment?
3. What are the implications for school leaders?
This literature review will focus on the important aspects of new teacher
induction programs, the innate qualities of Generation Y teachers, and the
current use of instructional technology in schools. The purpose of this literature
33
review is to provide the foundational knowledge necessary to answer the
primary research questions posed in this study.
New Teacher Induction
Pre-Service Preparation
To understand the instructional technology professional development and
new teacher induction needs that new teachers bring to the profession; one must
first understand what they were taught and what they experienced in typical
college pre-service programs. The use of technology has expanded from an
optional tool to one that is required in the world of work (Stobaugh & Tassell,
2011).
To respond to this need, universities are altering courses to infuse the
introduction and utilization of technological tools to enhance instruction.
The end product is that pre-service teachers should graduate with the
skills to seamlessly integrate technology to advance student learning. (p.
144)
The National Council for Accreditation in Teacher Education (NCATE)
has developed specific responsibilities for teacher education programs for
accreditation purposes by requiring certain standards. NCATE delineated the
following six standards:
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
34
Standard 4: Diversity
Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resource
Within Standard One there are numerous references to the integration of
technology, and within Standard Six NCATE describes effective units as
possessing information technology to serve the university and the community
(Stobaugh & Tassell, 2011). Vannatta and Beyerback (2000) noted, “…schools,
colleges, and departments of education have sought not only to provide courses
on educational technology but also to infuse technology into the teacher
education curriculum such that pre-service teachers experience technology-rich
instruction both as students and as teachers” (p. 132).
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2007 reported on
education technology used in teacher education programs. In this report,
respondents were asked about the extent to which their institutions’ teacher
education programs for initial licensure taught teacher candidates how to use
technology tools for various purposes, including enhancing or enriching
classroom instruction, understanding individual student learning styles,
assessing individual student progress and challenges, and designing
instructional interventions to individualize student instruction. The results are
listed below:
35
57% instructed pre-service teachers about how to use technology to
augment classroom instruction;
17% instructed pre-service teachers on employing technology to assess
student achievement;
17% trained pre-service teachers on designing instructional
interventions to individualize instruction; and
15% addressed how to utilize technology to accommodate for various
student learning styles. (p. 10)
In concluding its report, the NCES (2007) stated that "the institutions did
not vary much by institutional and program characteristics, a finding that
indicates a fairly common approach to educational technology across the nation’s
teacher education programs for initial licensure" (p. 17). Additionally, the NCES
reported that the majority of colleges and universities offering teacher education
programs prepared their teachers at least moderately for the use of instructional
technology in classrooms. The report also concluded that the majority of these
institutions experienced moderate to major barriers that hindered their ability to
prepare pre-service teachers to integrate technology into their teaching. Such
barriers included the lack of faculty training and interest and the lack of available
technology infrastructure. The research is clear that new teachers entering the
profession are not fully prepared to incorporate instructional technology into
their planning, instruction, and assessment practices, thus the need for new
teacher induction in this area is apparent.
36
The Need for New Teacher Induction
The retention of new teachers has garnered much attention in the past few
decades. Ingersoll (2001) has collected a substantial amount of empirical research
focused on determining which kinds of teachers are more prone to leave teaching
and why they leave the profession. An
important finding has been that teachers' decisions whether to stay or
leave the teaching profession are related to their age. The relationship
between teachers' age (or teaching experience, in some analyses) and their
turnover follows a U-shaped curve. Although there is some disagreement
as to why this is the case, researchers have consistently found that
younger teachers have very high rates of departure. (p. 502)
Lack of support through professional development is an area frequently
discussed when beginning teachers leave the educational profession (Schaefer,
Long, & Clandinin, 2012). Algozzine, Gretes, Queen, and Cowan-Hathcock
(2007) conducted a study that utilized a cross-sectional instrument to survey
third-year teachers who had participated in induction programs. They found that
(a) mentoring by experienced teachers, (b) release time for observing (both same
field and variant field), (c) common planning times, and (d) creating networks of
new and experienced teachers was found to help support beginning teachers
better cope with entry into the profession.
37
New teacher induction is a process by which school districts provide
initial inservice training to their newly hired teachers. Taranto (2011) states that
"Teacher induction programs have been shown to be effective strategies in
reducing new teacher attrition" (p. 1). Other researchers have written that
comprehensive programs designed around the new teacher to provide a
foundation in professional development and support are necessary to prepare
new teachers entering the field (Kaufman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu, & Peske, 2002;
Wong & Asquith, 2002).
Wood and Stanulis (2009) state that the goals of quality induction are to:
Increase novice teachers’ retention;
Promote novice teacher personal and professional well-being
Improve teacher competence;
Improve students’ academic achievement through improving teacher
performance; and
Satisfy mandated requirements related to induction and certification
(pp. 4-5).
These authors define new teacher induction as "an intensive, comprehensive
system of educative mentor support, professional development, and formative
assessment of novice teachers in their first through third years of teaching" (p.
15), and they recommend that quality induction programs encompass the
following nine program components:
1. Educative mentors’ preparation and mentoring of novice teachers;
38
2. Reflective inquiry and teaching practices;
3. Systematic and structured observations;
4. Developmentally appropriate professional development;
5. Formative teacher assessment;
6. Administrators’ involvement in induction;
7. A school culture supportive of novice teachers;
8. Program evaluation and/or research on induction;
9. A shared vision of knowledge, teaching, and learning (p. 5).
In their book, New Teacher Induction: How to Train, Support, and Retain New
Teachers, Breaux and Wong (2003) explain that new teacher induction programs
are a smart investment in the ongoing training, support, and retention of
beginning teachers, who, as a result of the programs, become more
qualified, capable, and effective teachers. Successful induction programs
go a long way toward improving the quality of teaching and ensuring
student achievement. (p. 11)
Breaux and Wong (2003) define induction as "a structured training
program that must begin before the first day of school and continue for two or
more years” (p. 5). New teacher induction has these three basic purposes:
1. To provide instruction in classroom management and effective
teaching techniques;
2. To reduce the difficulty of the transition into teaching; and
3. To maximize the retention rate of highly qualified teachers. (p. 5)
According to Bartlett and Johnson (2010)
there is great variety both within and across states as to the
instrumentation and goals of induction. Induction can mean a 1-day
workshop, a series of classes, an ongoing teacher-learning network, a
mentor to work one-on-one with the new teacher, or some combination
thereof. (pp. 847-848)
39
New teacher induction can be very basic such as a "buddy system" where the
school district assigns a mentor for a new teacher who acts as a supportive friend
during the beginnings of their teaching career (Stanulis, Burrill, & Ames, 2007).
On the opposite end of the new teacher induction continuum, a very detailed
and specific program is developed lasting three or more years. These types of
programs provide new teachers with highly trained and networked members of
an induction/learning community offering formative assessment and feedback
based on and directed at the improvement of their evolving teaching practice
(Bartlett & Johnson, 2010).
The efficacy of new teacher induction programs is the topic of study
among scholars (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010). A recent study by Stanulis and
Floden (2009) explored the differences between an intensive mentoring induction
model developed through a university– district partnership and a less intensive
district-led model. The intensive mentoring model included instructional
mentoring, mentor observation and feedback, and the analysis of student work
with a university trained, partial-release mentor. The findings of this study
suggest that new teachers participating in the more intensive mentoring
induction program had higher scores on measures of teaching practice, which
examined classroom atmosphere, instruction/content, management, and student
40
engagement district partnership than a less intensive district-led model (Bartlett
& Johnson, 2010).
Conversely, in a study by Glazerman et al. (2008), little variation was
discovered after one year between traditional district offerings and
comprehensive induction programs in retention, student achievement, or teacher
practice. Although this study may have been limited by a lack of model
variation, results from the second year of this study may alter the overall
findings (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010). Nonetheless, these authors write that
research literature illustrates a universal truth about new teacher induction. That
is - induction matters. Specifically, the form and quantity of induction is related
to both retention and satisfaction.
In their 2012 report titled "New Teacher Induction Programs," Hanover
Research wrote, "Effective teacher induction has been shown to have a positive
impact on professional persistence, student achievement, and instructional
effectiveness" (p. 2). The Hanover report details five key findings related to
effective new teacher induction. First, although typical school district practices
involve only a limited orientation and mentorship, the best practice should take a
more extended, in-depth approach. Second, the goals of new teacher induction
should include boosting student achievement, combating teacher attrition, and
41
improving teacher effectiveness. Third, essential program components should
include administrative support, social/emotional support, networking
opportunities, professional development, and formal evaluations. Fourth, all of
the exemplary new teacher induction programs examined in this report included
an extensive initial orientation session. Finally, exemplary districts also go
beyond initial orientations to provide continuous follow-up support for new or
novice teachers (pp. 2-3).
Recognizing and specifying these elements in policy promises to improve
the overall effectiveness of induction policy (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010). Scholars
have argued for targeted induction that addresses the curriculum and learning
needs of new teachers with regard to instructional practice (Achinstein &
Athanases, 2000; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Strong, 2005), and they suggest that
policies regarding induction make significant increases in teacher knowledge
and student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
Components of New Teacher Induction
There are numerous resources available which outline the necessary
components of a new teacher induction program. Breaux and Wong (2003) write
that there are certain commonalities that underlie the most successful programs,
42
and these authors recommend that school administrators include the following
components into their new teacher induction programs:
Start with an initial four or five days of induction before school begins;
Offer a continuum of professional development through systematic
training over a period of two or three years;
Provide study groups where new teachers can network and build
support, commitment, and leadership in a learning community;
Incorporate a strong sense of administrative support;
Integrate a mentoring component into the induction process;
Present a structure for modeling effective teaching during in-services
and mentoring;
Provide opportunities for inductees to visit demonstration classrooms
(p. 33).
In a strong induction program, the trainers become the "teachers," and the
new teachers become the "students." Initially, the primary focus is on the
instructing of new teachers in techniques that ensure student success. The
trainers immerse new teachers in the culture of the district, they demonstrate and
model effective classroom instructional and management techniques, and they
start to build a relationship that will last for several years (Breaux & Wong, 2003).
The Alliance for Excellent Education, a national policy and research
organization that works to help make every child a graduate, developed a
research-based report on the importance of high-quality new teacher induction
programs. Published in 2004, the Alliance's report, titled "Tapping the Potential:
Retaining and Developing High-Quality New Teachers," provides clear data that
43
prove the importance of effective new teacher induction. For example, although
"One out of every two new teachers hired will quit in five years," comprehensive
new teacher induction programs cut attrition rates in half (p. 2). As described in
this report, "Comprehensive induction is a combination of mentoring,
professional development and support, and formal assessments for new teachers
during at least their first two years of teaching" (p. 2). Furthermore,
"comprehensive induction helps to develop novice teachers into high-quality
professionals who improve student achievement. What is more, induction has
shown to create a payoff of $1.37 for every $1 invested" (p. 2). Finally, this report
states that although,
Many schools and districts have some form of induction or mentoring
program for new teachers. Unfortunately, only 1 percent of beginning
teachers currently receive the ongoing training and support that
constitutes comprehensive induction when they enter the teaching
profession. (p. 2)
The Alliance's report lists five necessary components in an effective new
teacher induction program. These are:
High-quality mentoring - This is defined as structured mentoring from a
carefully selected teacher or teachers who work in the same field or
subject as the new teacher, are trained to coach new teachers, and can
help improve the quality of teachers’ practice.
Common planning time - Regularly scheduled common planning time
helps teachers connect what and how they teach to improving student
achievement in a collaborative culture.
44
Ongoing professional development - These activities include regular
seminars and meetings that improve a teacher’s skill to increase
student learning. Professional development should be designed to
meet new teachers' needs in the areas of content knowledge,
instructional practices, addressing diverse student learning needs, and
classroom management.
An external network of teachers - Participation in a network of educators
outside of the local school provides teachers with a community of
colleagues within which to collaborate and receive support, keeping
them from feeling isolated
Standards-based evaluation - Standards-based evaluation of all beginning
teachers provides a mechanism for determining whether or not new
teachers should move forward in the profession. (p. 2)
Finally, the Alliance for Excellent Education recommends the following essential
elements in order to retain teachers and improve their overall quality.
Comprehensive induction should include:
strong principal leadership;
high-quality providers of the induction program with dedicated staff
resources;
additional support for new teachers with little preparation;
incentives for teachers to participate in induction activities;
alignment between induction, classroom needs, and professional
standards; and
an adequate and stable source of funding.
According to the New Teacher Center (www.newteachercenter.org), a
national non-profit organization dedicated to improving student learning by
accelerating the effectiveness of new teachers and school leaders,
Successful teacher induction systems focus on student learning and
teacher effectiveness. Strong programs include instructional mentoring by
45
carefully selected, well prepared, released mentors; professional learning
communities for mentors and new teachers; engaged principals; and
supportive school environments and district policies.
(http://www.newteachercenter.org/induction-programs)
The New Teacher Center (NTC) is committed to designing and
implementing robust teacher induction programs and to building the capacity of
educators to ensure the long-term sustainability of programs. NTC works with
state organizations and local school districts to assist in the development of new
teacher induction programs which include five key implementation phases that
combine to deliver a sustainable, high-quality teacher induction program. Table
2 below details the five phases of NTC's new teacher induction program.
To conclude, the National Education Association (2002) has defined three
models of new teacher induction. The first is a Basic Orientation Model where
school personnel teach their new employees about the districts' policies and
procedures, and where mentors are assigned to their new teachers. These
mentors, "typically serve in an informal capacity, with little attention given to
modeling effective instructional practice" (p. 2). A second, more intensive model
is called the Instructional Practice Model. This model also covers policies and
procedures, but it further includes classroom management issues. In addition,
46
Table 2
New Teacher Center - Five Phases of New Teacher Induction
PHASE PROGRAM SUMMARY
PHASE I:
Pre-Implementation
Laying the Groundwork
Assessment of District Context:
Consultation for in-depth understanding and
partnership development
Development of initial scope of work and timeline
NTC Induction Institute
NTC guidance, coaching, and facilitation for program
implementation and assessment
Support for mentor recruitment
PHASE II:
Year One Implementation
Getting Started
Program Launch:
Mentor Academies 1-4
Principal engagement
Impact plan development, implementation, and
assessment
Alignment with other district initiatives
Design and facilitation of mentor forums
PHASE III:
Year Two Implementation
Deepening &
Strengthening
Induction
Full Implementation:
Mentor Academies 5-8
Principal professional development
Continual alignment with district initiatives
NTC Community of Practice for program leaders
Consultation around mentor forums
PHASE IV:
Year Three
Implementation
Building Sustainability
Gradual Release:
Mentor Academies 9-11
Coaching, quality assurance, and consultancy services
Co-presenting with NTC staff
Aligned professional development for coaches,
principals, and others
PHASE V:
Year Four & Beyond
Sharing & Learning
for Innovation
Ongoing Refinement:
Access to quality control
Program autonomy
Induction leadership networks
Mentor alumni network
Retrieved from: http://www.newteachercenter.org/induction-programs/new-teacher-induction
47
this model links induction to current state and local teaching standards, and
skilled, well-trained mentors are assigned to assist the new teachers with
research-based instructional strategies. The third model of new teacher
induction as defined by the NEA is called the School Transformational Model.
This model, which is rarely utilized by school districts, incorporates the
components of the first two models, while also "connecting induction programs
to systemic, school-wide renewal efforts that promote continuous improvement"
(p. 2). This model is research based, and it uses data to assess and change its
professional development practices, teacher evaluation systems, and curriculum.
State Standards for New Teacher Induction
Bartlett and Johnson (2010) examined the new teacher induction policies
of three mid-western states - Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The authors
discovered that, "although the orientation and conception of each state's policy is
similar, the states represent three different structural approaches to induction
policy" (p. 847). Of the three states included in the study, only Ohio has a state
mandate with specific guidelines that are tied to teacher credentialing and that
are funded by the state. Actually, the authors found that Ohio is one of only 16
states that fund new teacher induction programs with state funds. Wisconsin's
new teacher induction policy, although tied to teacher credentialing, is unfunded
48
by the state. Finally, Illinois's new teacher induction policy is essentially
dormant with no funds available to school districts to assist with new teacher
induction.
"The lack of state funding and continuity in program can contribute to
great inequities" (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010, p. 868). In addition,
State policy should ensure an even enactment of induction programs.
Following the logic of induction, participation in a comprehensive
program leads to increased teacher learning resulting in higher quality
teachers and better teacher retention and, by extension, to increased
student learning. (p. 868)
These authors argue that state funding, guidance through clear information
about the state's program quality and quantity, and definitive, measureable goals
are all necessary for effective new teacher induction. This leads one to look for a
high-quality rubric to assess a school district's new teacher induction program.
In February, 2012, New Teacher Center (www.newteachercenter.org)
published its Review of State Policies on Teacher Induction which provides
comprehensive summaries for all 50 states. For each state, the NTC reviewed the
presence or absence of policies related to 10 key criteria that are most critical to
the provision of universal, high-quality induction and mentoring support for
beginning educators. The state summaries capture all relevant policies, statutes,
49
regulations, induction program standards, and other guidance on new teacher
induction and mentoring. According to the NTC:
The insufficiency of state induction policies comes to light when we
compare states across multiple policy criteria. For example, our analysis
determined that 27 states require some form of induction or mentoring
support for new teachers (and 11 require two or more years of induction
support), that 22 states require completion of, or participation in, an
induction program for advanced teaching certification, and that 17 states
provide some dedicated funding for teacher induction. However, only 3
states—Connecticut (CT), Delaware (DE) and Iowa (IA)—require schools
and districts to provide multi-year induction support to beginning
teachers, require teachers to complete an induction program to obtain a
professional teaching license, and provide dedicated state induction
funding. Only three. Further, like many other states, each of these three
have shortcomings in their policies governing induction for beginning
school principals (not required in CT, required for only one year in DE
and IA), adoption of induction program standards (only in CT), policies
governing on-going mentor professional development (only in CT), and
limitations on full-time mentors (in CT and DE). It is not our intention to
be overly critical of these three states as they certainly are among the
leaders in this policy area. It is simply to show the need to strengthen state
policies on new educator induction across the board—and even in states
at the head of the pack. (p. iv)
The New Teacher Center's Review of State Policies on Teacher Induction
clearly identifies and defines the 10 criteria for the most effective new teacher
induction. The NTC contends that
states that come closest to meeting all 10 criteria will raise the likelihood
that every new educator receives a sufficient level of induction and
mentoring support, will ensure that local programs are comprehensive
and include key quality components, and will enjoy the resulting benefits,
including enhanced teacher effectiveness. (p. vi)
50
The NTC criteria for effective new teacher induction programs are listed
below. These were used as the rubric for assessing each state's new teacher
induction program. NTC State Induction Policy Criteria:
1. Teachers Served: State policy should require that all teachers receive
induction support during their first two years in the profession;
2. Administrators Served: State policy should require that all school
administrators receive induction support during their first two years in
the profession;
3. Program Standards: The state should have formal program standards
that govern the design and operation of local teacher induction
programs;
4. Mentor Selection: State policy should require a rigorous mentor
selection process;
5. Mentor Training: State policy should require foundational training and
ongoing professional development for mentors;
6. Mentor Assignment and Caseload: State policy should address how
mentors are assigned to beginning teachers, allow for manageable
mentor caseloads, and encourage programs to provide release time for
mentors;
7. Program Delivery: State policy should identify key induction program
elements, including a minimum amount of mentor-new teacher contact
time, formative assessment of teaching practice, and classroom
observation;
8. Funding: The state should provide dedicated funding to support local
educator induction programs;
9. Educator Accountability: The state should require participation in
and/or completion of an induction program to advance from an initial
to professional teaching license; and
10. Program Accountability: The state should assess or monitor program
quality through accreditation, program evaluation, surveys, site visits,
self-reports, and other relevant tools and strategies.
51
Illinois
The State of Illinois passed Public Act 092-035, New Teacher Induction and
Mentoring, on July 24, 2004. Section 21A-10 of this act required public school
districts to develop new teacher induction programs "that will assist new
teachers in developing the skills and strategies necessary for instructional
excellence, provided that funding is made available by the State Board of
Education from an appropriation for this purpose." This law further outlines the
following requirements for a new teacher induction program:
1. Assigns a mentor teacher to each new teacher for a period of at least
two years.
2. Aligns with the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards, content area
standards, and applicable local school improvement and professional
development plans.
3. Addresses all of the following elements:
(A) Mentoring and support of new teacher
(B) Professional development
(C) Formative assessment designed to ensure feedback and reflection.
4. Describes the role of the mentor teacher, the criteria for their selection,
and how they will be trained.
Funding for new teacher induction programs was to be $1,200 per each
new teacher in a school district for the two year mentoring period. These funds
were to be designated for the purposes of mentor teacher compensation, mentor
teacher or new teacher training, and release time (Illinois Public Act 093-0335,
52
2004). To date, state funding for new teacher induction in Illinois has not
materialized (Bartlett & Johnson, 2010).
In accordance with Article 21A of the 2006 Illinois School Code, the Illinois
State Teacher Certification Board developed nine Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008). They are:
Standard 1: Induction Program Leadership, Administration, and
Support
The induction program has an administrative structure with specified
leaders who plan, implement, evaluate and refine the program through
data analysis, program evaluation, and stakeholder communication linked
to relevant standards.
Standard 2: Program Goals and Design
Local program design is focused on beginning teacher development,
support, retention and improved student learning. The goals are guided
by current induction research, effective practices, Illinois Standards of
Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs, the
district/school improvement plan and local concerns/context.
Standard 3: Resources
Program leadership allocates and monitors sufficient resources to meet all
goals and deliver program components to all participants.
Standard 4: Site Administrator Roles and Responsibilities
Site administrators lead efforts to create a positive climate for the delivery
of all essential program components. Site administrators and program
leadership collaborate to ensure that they are well prepared to assume
their responsibilities for supporting beginning teachers in the induction
program.
53
Standard 5: Mentor Selection and Assignment
Mentors are recruited, selected and assigned using a comprehensive
strategy that includes a clearly articulated, open process and specific
criteria that are developed by and communicated to all stakeholder
groups.
Standard 6: Mentor Professional Development
Mentor professional development provides a formal orientation and
foundational mentor training before they begin their work with beginning
teachers and should continue over the course of the mentor’s work with
beginning teachers. Mentors have time, supported by the program, to
engage in this mentor learning community and are consistently supported
in their efforts to assist beginning teachers in their development, with a
focus on student learning.
Standard 7: Development of Beginning Teacher Practice
Beginning teachers have regularly scheduled time, provided during the
two year program, to participate in ongoing professional development
that is focused on their professional growth to support student learning.
Standard 8: Formative Assessment
Beginning teachers and mentors participate in formative assessment
experiences, collaboratively collecting and analyzing measures of teaching
progress, including appropriate documentation, mentor observations and
student work, to improve classroom practices and increase student
achievement.
Standard 9: Program Evaluation
Programs operate a comprehensive, ongoing system of program
development and evaluation that involves all program participants and
other stakeholders.
This standards document further details each of the nine standards for
new teacher induction by providing definitions and specific criteria for quality
program development. This document will be used as a second conceptual
54
framework to assess the case study's new teacher induction program (see
Appendix K).
Generation Y Teachers
Baby Boom teachers (those born between 1946 and 1964) are retiring from
the profession in large numbers, and the next group of teachers who make up
what is considered Generation X (those born between 1965 and 1976), is moving
into their places as the senior teachers in schools. This generational change in the
teaching workforce has left openings for the newest generation of teachers. This
group has been identified as Generation Y (those born roughly between 1977 and
1995) (Behrstock & Clifford, 2009).
Table 3 presents the current generations, some key characteristics that
define them, and the percentages of each one in the United States workforce.
Lovely and Buffum (2007) prefer the term "Millennials" when writing
about those born during the Generation Y years. In defining this generation,
Lovely and Buffum write, "They are in our classrooms as students, finishing
student teaching at the university, and beginning to apply for classroom jobs all
across the nation. They are well educated and open minded, and they love to
collaborate. They are entering the schoolhouse with huge expectations, and if
they are not pleased, they're only a click away from letting hundreds of friends
55
know about it" (p. 71). These authors affirm that we all better prepare for their
continued emergence as students and as new teachers.
Table 3
Current U.S. Generations
Generation Born
Between
Estimated
Size
Attributions % of U.S.
Workforce
in 2000
Projected
% of U.S.
Workforce
in 2010
Projected
% of U.S.
Workforce
in 2020
The Mature
Generation
1925-
1945
75 million Loyal,
formal,
trusting of
authority
13% 3% N/A
Baby
Boomers
1946-
1964
82 million Optimistic,
idealistic
values,
career
focused
48% 37% 20%
Generation
X
1965-
1976
50 million Skeptical,
informal,
self-reliant
22% 22% 20%
Generation
Y
1977-
1995
79 million Realistic,
moral
values,
committed,
achievement
focused
16% 38% 44%
Source: Behrstock and Clifford, 2009, p. 1.
To further help define the generation called Millennials, Lovely and
Buffum (2007) quote from Claire Raines's book, Connecting Generations: The
Sourcebook for a New Workplace. In this book, Raines identifies eight major trends
over the last 20 years that have shaped the personalities of Millennials. They are:
Focus on children and family;
56
Scheduled, structured lives;
Multiculturism;
Terrorism;
Heroism;
Patriotism;
Parent advocacy; and
Globalism.
These trends have had an impact on how current students and our youngest
group of teachers perceive the world, what they expect from themselves and
others, and the values they bring into our classrooms (Raines, 2003). The values
that have been developed during their formative years have played an impact on
the distinct characteristics of Generation Y teachers.
Characteristics of Generation Y
The characteristics of those individuals falling within Generation Y have
been clearly delineated by many researchers and authors. In their book,
Millennials go to College: Strategies for a New Generation on Campus, Howe and
Strouse (2003) provide seven core traits of this group. These are:
Special: Older generations have created the sense in Millennials that
they are vitally important to their parents, community, and the nation.
Sheltered: Spurred on by the tampering of Tylenol, Amber alerts, and
highly publicized school shootings, Millennials are the recipients of the
most sweeping youth protection movement in American history.
Optimistic: Full of trust, optimism, and an emotional connectedness to
their parents and society at large, Millennials see the future as full of
potential and theirs for the taking.
57
Team oriented: Cooperative learning, copious team sports, and the
media make this the most naturally collaborative generation to date.
The Millennial code word is TEAM - Together Everyone Achieves
More.
Conventional: Proud of their own behavior and accepting of adult
values, Millennials embrace the rules and conventions of society
without much question or rebellion. Grunge is out and Ambercrombie
and Fitch is in.
Pressured: Millennials accept the fact that they must study hard,
compete for grades, and take full advantage of the opportunities
parents provide. They've grown up with Mom and Dad proudly
displaying "My Child is an Honor Student" bumper stickers on the
family SUV.
Achieving: This generation has been bombarded with school
accountability and the push for higher standards. Millennials may
well become America's best educated generation. (p. 75)
Others have provided similar characteristics of Generation Y. NAS Recruitment
Communication, in a 2006 white paper, lists three characteristics of Generation Y.
They are:
racially and ethnically diverse;
extremely independent because of divorce, day care, single parents,
latchkey parenting, and the technological revolution that they are
growing up alongside; and
empowered due to overindulgent parents which has given them a
sense of security and optimism about the future.
Blashki et al. (2007), quoting Mani and Gerdes (2006) list identifiable traits
of Generation Y such as flexibility, adaptability, spontaneity, and an increased
disposition towards participative behaviors. According to Lovely and Buffum
(2007), "Millennials believe they are special and so do their parents. Schools are
58
being asked to explain precisely how they will meet the needs of Johnny, since
we know that Johnny is a 'trophy child' who already knows an awful lot" (p. 75).
Behrstock and Clifford (2009) further define Generation Y teachers as
being highly educated and educationally minded, comfortable with technology,
dissatisfied with technologically inferior workplaces, creative and innovative,
collaborative and inclusive, connected to family and community, and highly
motivated. Behrstock and Clifford state that
Many of these characteristics make Generation Y well suited to become
the teachers of tomorrow. Given their value for education and their desire
for a working life that is relevant and has an impact, Generation Y likely
will be motivated by the many opportunities for teachers to make a
difference in the lives of their students and society. (p. 2)
In addition, Generation Y teachers are comfortable with technology,
collaboration, and innovation, thus they are equipped to prepare students for the
21st century (Behrstock & Clifford, 2009). In another study, Treuren and
Anderson (2010) list the following attributes of the Generation Y workforce as
such:
a demand for professional growth and development;
a desire to reconcile their various life interests through work-life
balance;
need for variety in work, with challenge and change;
the desire for responsibility and input;
a wish for reward through income growth and recognition of their
contribution; and
59
a desire for appropriate workplace leadership. (pp. 50-51)
Clearly, the percentage of Generation Y workers, including teachers, is on
the rise, thus educational leaders in today's schools must fully understand the
characteristics of these new teachers. In their book Recruiting and Retaining
Generation Y Teachers, Rebore and Walmsley (2010) state that those teachers born
within the Generation Y years have shown the tendencies to:
Communicate more through technology than in person;
Value benefits at work;
Seek career advancement, desire flexibility and higher pay;
Work in teams and possess high energy;
Work hard but also enjoy pleasure;
Can be financially savvy;
Want constant feedback;
Work among and with a diverse group of individuals;
Multitask proficiently; and
Like change. (p. 5)
In 2011, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Institute
of Research published a report titled Workplaces that Support High-Performing
Teaching and Learning: Insights from Generation Y Teachers. This report illustrates
what Generation Y teachers consider to be the components of a high-performing
workplace. According to the Generation Y teachers surveyed, their workplaces
were conducive to high-performance when:
1. They received frequent feedback on their effectiveness as teachers;
2. They engaged in a high quality evaluation process;
60
3. They received differentiated and individualized support in the form of
professional development;
4. There were multiple opportunities for collaboration; and
5. Instructional technology was current and used efficiently. (Coggshall,
Behrstock-Sherratt, & Drill, 2011, p. 3)
The large body of research on Generation Y clearly demonstrates that this
group is unique and has specific needs that must be addressed in the workplace.
A thorough understanding of the detailed characteristics of Generation Y can
assist educational leaders in providing the professional development necessary
to retain the best teachers in their schools.
Generation Y Teachers' Use of Technology
In 2001, Marc Prensky wrote his seminal article "Digial Natives, Digital
Immigrants." This article helped to define the differences between those who
grew up with digital technology and those who did not.
Today's students - K through college - represent the first generations to
grow up with this new technology. They have spent their entire lives
surrounded by and using computers, video games, digital music players,
video cameras, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital
age. (p. 1)
The children who were students in 2001 when Prensky wrote this article are now
Generation Y teachers, applying for teaching jobs or teaching in our schools.
Prensky's thinking has evolved in the last 12 years since he wrote "Digital
Natives, Digital Immigrants." In a more recent article titled, "Teaching the Right
61
Stuff," Prensky (2012) writes about the new skills that students should be
learning in schools today such as writing blog posts and using multimedia, and
that teachers should switch their instructional approaches to teach these tools.
Furthermore, Prensky believes that there is a trio of new skills that teachers need
to teach their students. These are:
Working and collaborating in online virtual communities;
making videos; and
programming, which Prensky calls "the new literacy. (p. 2)
It is worth noting that the first two of these skills are directly related to
communicating with others in some form or fashion.
These ideas, as presented by Prensky, fit very nicely with the writing of
Rebore and Walmsley (2010) who state that Generation Y teachers are
seriously and intensely involved in communicating by electronic means,
which includes cell phones, iPods, text messages, e-mail, and Web sites.
Furthermore, such communication is carried out asynchronously,
meaning that they are not tied to real time in their endeavor to
communicate. (p. 50)
According to Behrstock and Clifford (2009), "One of the most defining features of
Gen Y teachers is their expectation regarding the use of technology" (p. 12).
Additionally, they recommend equipping classrooms with computers for student
use and ensuring that projectors and other technologies are available and
function properly. Finally, and most importantly, "this technology can keep Gen
62
Y teachers 'plugged in,' which the literature suggests is vital to their well-being”
(Reynolds et al., 2008).
Professional Development for Generation Y Teachers
When considering the unique characteristics of Generation Y teachers as
defined by Rebore and Walmsley (2010), professional development for this group
should be sensitive of their specific needs as new teachers and learners. For
example, Generation Y teachers embrace feedback and change, thus professional
development is desirable for them, and it is an activity to which school systems
must be committed. Professional development must be "productive for the
teachers - it should not be a repeat of something Generation Y teachers just had
in their teacher training. Having choice for teachers would improve the
outcomes of successful professional development programs" (p. 97).
Rebore and Walmsley (2010) explain that currently, the most effective
professional development structure for new teachers is the concept of
professional learning communities. They state that PLCs have an inherent
structure with four major focuses that fits well with the needs of Generation Y
teachers including: (1) learning rather than teaching, (2) collaboration, (3)
viewing all members of the community as learners, and (4) self-accountability (p.
97). The first focus addresses the need to move from a traditional approach to
63
teaching where the school and teacher take on the responsibility for student
learning to an approach where the students take more ownership in their
learning. Generation Y teachers value communication and collaboration, thus
professional development must address this by providing opportunities for these
new teachers to work together in teams of colleagues. Additionally, providing
some choice and differentiation will help meet their professional learning needs.
This leads to the third focus which includes all teachers, including those who are
the most junior, to be active members in the school's learning community. Thus,
the adults are joining the students as active learners. Finally, with their desire for
responsibility and input, and their aspirations for appropriate workplace
leadership, Generation Y teachers are self-directed employees who are able to
"self-actualize in a manner that contributes to the mission of their respective
schools and school districts" (p. 98).
Collaboration within a learning community also is a theme developed by
Taranto (2011). In his article "New-Teacher Induction 2.0," Taranto studied the
design, implementation, and evaluation of online learning as part of a new
teacher induction program. Through the use of a wiki, an online community was
created through which new teachers, veteran teachers, and administrators
participated in a collaborative online environment which incorporated
64
embedded videos, audio files, text files, Google Documents, and discussion
boards. The quantitative data generated by Taranto's study indicated "a strong
acceptance of the online community as an effective component of a new-teacher
induction program" (p. 13). Additionally, 100% of the educators involved in this
study agreed that the tool (the wiki) was helpful for aiding instruction, seeking
out support, and facilitating reflection. The implications for Generation Y
teachers are clear. "As more and more people who have experience and
preferences in using digital tools enter the teaching field, the preferred methods
of forming professional learning communities will be in the form of new
information and communication technologies" (p. 13).
By creating an opportunity where new teachers can share common
experiences, seek support from experienced educators, and focus on professional
development, school districts have the opportunity to promote teacher self-
efficacy (Hur & Brush, 2009). Hur and Brush studied teacher participation in
online communities. Their study indicated that that there were five reasons why
teachers wanted to participate in online communities of teachers: (a) sharing
emotions, (b) utilizing the advantages of online environments, (c) combating
teacher isolation, (d) exploring ideas, and (e) experiencing a sense of
camaraderie. For Generation Y teachers who thrive on communicating through
65
technology, who can multi-task proficiently, and who like to collaborate with
others, the concept of online professional development might be a viable option
as part of new teacher induction program (pp. 290-291).
Building on the characteristics of Generation Y (i.e., thrive on challenges,
self-confident, seek opportunities) and the most important factors for attracting
and retaining Generation Y teachers (work-life balance, collaborative
environment, opportunities for advancement, inclusive administrators, and
ongoing career development, Graham (2009) identifies the staff development
needs for this group. Providers of professional development for Generation Y
teachers should include a shift from instructor-led, content-based training to a
more self-directed process. "The emphasis is now on individuals taking
responsibility for designing and pursuing their learning to meet their own
personal and professional goals within an organizational environment that
supports this learning" (p. 178, quoting from Staron, Jasinski, & Weatherly, 2006).
The Use of Instructional Technology in Schools
Why Use Technology in Schools?
"Since the early 1990s, schools, districts, and the federal government have
invested heavily in instructional technology (IT). Teacher and student access to
technology in schools has improved dramatically" (Miranda & Russell, 2011, p.
66
301). Thus, the use of technology in schools has increased dramatically.
According to Wells and Lewis (2006), all public schools are connected to the
Internet, with 97% connected via high speed connection. The student-to-
computer ratio dropped from 4.4 in 2003 to 3.8 in 2005, and hundreds of schools
and districts are experimenting with or have put in place one-to-one laptop
programs that provide each student with their own laptop. Yet, evidence
suggests that investments in IT may not have translated into widespread use in
schools (Cuban, 2001; Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, & Miranda, 2003a; Russell,
Bebell, O’Dwyer, & O’Connor, 2003b; Wells & Lewis, 2006). This begs the
question "Why use technology in today's schools?"
Pence and McIntosh (2011) write, "Of course, the critical factor in
education is not the tools but the learning space. Technology is acting as a
catalyst, forcing a reexamination of traditional practices" (p. 177). The idea that
educators must change their paradigm for teaching in a technological age was
presented by McCain and Jukes in 2001. In their book, Windows on the Future:
Education in the Age of Technology, these authors examined the paradigm shifts
taking place in classrooms due to the infusion of technology. They made some
bold predictions in 2001 regarding the state of education in the future. For
example, they wrote that education in the future would not be confined to a
67
single place or a specific time, nor would it be confined to a single person or even
to "human teachers." Continuing, McCain and Jukes predicted that education
would not be confined to paper-based information nor would it be confined to
memorization and linear learning. Today, with the pervasive use of
collaborative tools and the Internet, McCain and Jukes's predictions certainly
ring true. Twelve years ago these authors stated that "Technology is not
important in and of itself. It is what the technology can do to make you more
productive in your daily tasks that is important" (p. 103). Continuing, they wrote
that "For education, the central issue is about how technology can be organized
around student learning, not how student learning can be organized around
technology. We need to see technology as helping students think and
communicate effectively" (p. 103).
What McCain and Jukes were referring to in 2001 in their book has now
been transformed into what has been named the "21st century skills." The
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a national organization that advocates for
21st century readiness for every student, has created a framework for 21st
century learning. This framework "presents a holistic view of 21st century
teaching and learning that combines a discrete focus on 21st century student
outcomes (a blending of specific skills, content knowledge, expertise and
68
literacies) with innovative support systems to help students master the multi-
dimensional abilities required of them in the 21st century" (www.p21.org).
According to The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, the outcomes for 21st
century instruction are:
1. Core Subjects (the 3 Rs) and 21st Century Themes
Global Awareness
Financial and Business Literacy
Civic Literacy
Health Literacy
Environmental Literacy
2. Learning and Innovation Skills
Creativity and Innovation
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Communication and Collaboration
3. Information, Media and Technology Skills
Information Literacy
Media Literacy
ICT Literacy
4. Life and Career Skills
In their book 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn, Bellanca
and Brandt (2010) provide "a compilation of reflections on the possibilities for
21st century learning by some of the most thoughtful educational minds in the
United States" (p. xiii). The editors present sixteen points of view regarding the
way students should be learning and teachers should be teaching in 21st century
69
schools. In one chapter, Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey explain how functions,
not tools, should guide instructional technology. Teachers should focus on the
"functions of the technology rather than the tools or forms of technology" (p.
226). Instead of trying to keep up with such tools as Twitter™, podcasting,
Facebook™, GarageBand™, wikis, blogs, and RSS feeds, teachers should
understand the functions for which these tools were created. Fisher and Frey list
the following functions as those that help in teaching 21ST century skills:
Communicating;
Listening;
Networking;
Presenting;
Searching;
Sharing; and
Storing.
The idea is to use these functions to move away from an emphasis on the device
and toward a sustained focus on the purposes of learning.
Cheryl Lemke, in her chapter titled "Innovation through Technology,"
describes three innovations that are "rippling through our society that must
inform America's new vision for 21st century learning" (p. 246). According to
Lemke, Innovation One is "Visualization" where people learn better when
combining visuals with text and sound rather than with each of these processes
working in isolation. "Students engaged in learning that incorporates high-
70
quality multimodal designs outperform, on average, students who learn using
traditional approaches with single modes" (p. 249). Innovation Two is
"Democratization of Knowledge." The Internet's prevalent use in schools has
opened up new opportunities for people to learn outside of the brick and mortar
of the school building. Educators can now actively connect to student learning
done beyond the school in order to bring relevancy and student interests to the
formal work done in classrooms. "The democratization of knowledge provides
the opportunity for lifelong individual and group learning" (p. 263). Innovation
Three is "Participatory Learning." The tools of Web 2.0 such as Twitter™, blogs,
wikis, Flickr™, RSS feeds, Facebook™, and YouTube™ have provided educators
new modalities for students to engage in teaming, collaboration, and
participatory learning. Students should be expected to participate in virtual
communities as well as in their classroom communities.
Technology integration is an instruction‐oriented practice that relies on
various technology resources to achieve improved student learning outcomes.
Districts should aim for technology integration that is routine and transparent,
accessible, and supportive of curricular goals. When these factors are present,
technology tools become “a seamless part of the learning process” (Hanover
Research, 2013, p. 5). According to Hanover Research, that is the purpose for the
71
use of instructional technology. Furthermore, 74% of teachers cite the main
benefits of educational technology as motivating students to learn, reinforcing
and expanding of content, and responding to a variety of learning (Hanover
Research, 2013).
To What End or Purpose?
The purpose of instructional technology is to increase student learning in
"technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms" (An & Reigeluth, 2011, p.
54). These authors continue,
The learner-centered model focuses on developing real-life skills, such as
collaboration, higher-order thinking, and problem-solving skills, and
better meets the complex needs of the information age. The learner-
centered model also addresses the personal domain, which is often
ignored in conventional schools and classrooms, and it results in increased
student motivation and learning. In learner-centered classrooms, students
feel accepted and supported, feel ownership over their learning, and are
more likely to be involved and willing to learn (Bransford et al., 2000;
Cornelius-White & Harbaugh, 2009; McCombs & Whisler, 1997; Reigeluth,
1994). (p. 54)
This concept is supported by the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE), an association for educators and education leaders engaged in
improving learning and teaching by advancing the effective use of technology in
PK–12 and teacher education. The ISTE has developed clear-cut standards for
learning, leading and teaching in the digital age. These are the National
72
Education Technology Standards (NETS), which have been developed for
students (NETS-S), for teachers (NETS-T), for administrators (NETS-A), and for
coaches (NETS-C).
According to the ISTE website, the NETS-S
are the standards for evaluating the skills and knowledge students need to
learn effectively and live productively in an increasingly global and digital
world. Simply being able to use technology is no longer enough. Today's
students need to be able to use technology to analyze, learn, and explore.
Digital age skills are vital for preparing students to work, live, and
contribute to the social and civic fabric of their communities.
(http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students)
The NETS-S are comprised of six standards:
1. Creativity and Innovation;
2. Communication and Collaboration;
3. Research and Information Fluency;
4. Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making;
5. Digital Citizenship; and
6. Technology Operations and Concepts.
The connections to An and Reigeluth's (2011) work on the learner-centered
model are that the NETS-S must have certain essential conditions to effectively
leverage technology for learning. ISTE defines student-centered learning,
empowered leaders, and equitable access as three of the 14 essential conditions
for all of the NETS standards. These three are directly related to the needs of
students when using technology in classrooms.
73
How the Nebraska RETC Rubric Relates
The Nebraska Rubric of Essential Conditions (RETC) (2006) will be used to
develop the instructional technology-related interview and survey questions for
this case study.
The RETC provides a framework identifying a set of essential conditions
and provides corresponding indicators of progress in meeting those
conditions. It supports the planning process by allowing schools to
conduct a systematic assessment of their progress in integrating
technology against a standard established by a statewide group of
educational technology leaders. (Steckelberg et al., 2008, p. 82)
In their article, Steckelberg et al. described the development of the RETC as well
as the rubric's reliability when used to determine the technology needs when
adopting and integrating technology use in classrooms. This was a two year
study completed during 2005 and 2006.
Data from the initial two years of implementation indicate that the rubric
provides a useful framework and reliable Web-based method for the self-
assessment of essential conditions necessary for integrating technology in
K-12 schools. The RETC provides both a framework of conditions and a
descriptive categorization of levels of progress in achieving these
conditions. (pp. 88-89)
How the Illinois Standards for New Teacher Induction Relate
The Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher
Induction Programs (2008) will be used to assess the new teacher induction
program in use by the school district being studied in this research project.
74
These standards, developed by the Illinois State Teacher Certification Board in
December (2008) were designed to help educational leaders reflect on the best
practices and effective structures necessary to design and deliver a high quality,
effective new teacher induction program. For this study, these standards will
assist the researcher in assessing whether this school district is:
providing a system for teacher induction that provides an effective
transition into the first and second years of teaching;
improving student performance through improved professional
development;
enabling beginning teachers to be effective in teaching a diverse
student population;
identifying those beginning teachers who need additional assistance to
succeed in the classroom; and
establishing an effective, cohesive formative assessment program.
The following graphic illustrates how the Nebraska rubric and the Illinois
New Teacher Induction Standards are at the center of these data collected and
analyzed in a triangular method. All three areas of data collection will focus
directly on both the rubric and the list of standards.
75
Figure 2. Data Triangulation
Summary
This literature review focused on three distinct areas. First, to ebb the
flow of new teachers leaving the profession, school district administrators must
place a stronger emphasis on their new teacher induction programs. The
literature is clear that such programs, if done over the course of two or more
years, will improve teaching and raise student achievement. A clear need for
high quality new teacher induction is in evidence, and specific components of
new teacher induction programs were identified. Additionally, the research is
clear that, although many states have promulgated policies regarding new
teacher induction, most states do not support individual schools and districts
Observations and artifact reviews
Administrator Interviews
Nebraska Rubric
&
Illinois NewTeacher Induction Standards
Generation Y Teacher Surveys
76
with the funding necessary to provide high-quality new teacher professional
development.
Second, this literature review identified the characteristics of those
considered Generation Y (born between 1977 and 1995). This distinct generation,
also called Millennials, represents many of the newest members of the teaching
profession. They bring specific characteristics and skills with them into the
classroom including an innate use of technology in their lives. Generation Y
teachers are digital natives who require some specialized professional
development at the start of their careers.
Finally, this literature review discussed why schools should be
incorporating instructional technology (IT) in classrooms. The evidence suggests
that IT has risen dramatically over the last few years in K-12 schools, and that
technology is a vehicle for which teachers should be using to engage their
students. Furthermore, a set of distinct 21st century skills has been developed
with the purpose of increasing learner-centered classrooms and developing self-
directed students, and these skills should be taught in schools in order to prepare
students for work in the 21st century.
77
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this dissertation was to identify and then deeply study one
school district that has been considered exemplary in the use of instructional
technology for planning, instruction, and assessment, to determine how this
school district trains its Generation Y teachers in the use of technology, and to
make recommendations to educational leaders as to the best plans for teacher
induction in the area of instructional technology.
A qualitative case study methodology was used to collect and analyze
data to answer the following research questions:
1. What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in order for them to appropriately utilize
technology in their planning, instruction, and assessment?
2. What recommendations should be made for all school districts in order
for them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best
78
uses of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment?
3. What are the implications for school leaders?
This chapter will detail the methodology used to answer these research
questions. In addition, the chapter will describe the participating school district,
the data sources, the procedures for collecting data, an analysis of these data
along with generalizations, and strengths and limitations of the study.
Case Study Research Methodology and Design
School districts are complex systems of individual stakeholders working
toward providing the best education for their students. According to Davis et al.
(2012), "As educators and educational researchers, we find a particular resonance
with the notion that a complex system is a learning system" (p. 375). Merriam
(2009) states that "A case study is an in-depth description and analysis of a
bounded system" (p. 40). By bounded system, Merriam is referring to a single
unit or entity where there are boundaries to the study. For example, studying
the phenomenon involving a single person, a group, an institution, or a policy
would be considered a bounded study.
This study focused on one specific institution, namely an elementary
school district in Illinois. Yin (2009) defines a case study as "an empirical inquiry
79
that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,
especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly
evident" (p. 18). Therefore, as Yin continues, "You would use the case study
method because you wanted to understand a real-life phenomenon in depth, but
such understanding encompassed important contextual conditions - because
they were highly pertinent to your phenomenon of study" (p. 18). Based on these
definitions, in an educational setting, a case study could be about one particular
program, group of teachers, classroom of learners, or school district.
Case study also allows the researcher to obtain in-depth data about a
small number of cases and compare the cases (Creswell, 2007). Cases are
bounded by time and activity, and researchers collect detailed information using
a variety of data collection procedures over a sustained period of time (Stake,
1995).
This case study provided an in depth analysis of generation Y teachers in
one suburban school district through the lenses of the definition of Generation Y,
an instructional technology rubric, and a new teacher induction rubric. The
school district chosen for this case study was one that has exemplified excellence
in the area of instructional technology. This district has received the 1998
National School Board Association's Institute for Transfer of Technology to
80
Education (NSBA/ITTE) Video Salute for creating improved teaching and
learning environments using technology, the first Reed Hundt Award from the
National School Board Association for excellence in the effective use of
technology in 1998, the 2003 Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, and
the 2004 Technology Leadership Network Trailblazer Award.
The study of this school district was in depth through the collection of
data from numerous sources including Generation Y teachers, school district
administrators, observations, and artifacts. Individual interviews, surveys,
observations, and document reviews were conducted to reveal the human
experiences of Generation Y teachers and whether they received a high quality
induction program in order for them to meaningfully embed technology into
their instruction.
With the lenses of this proposed study identified and focused on a specific
set of teachers and rubrics, the need for a research methodology that
acknowledges the importance of context was crucial. Case study research has
been ideal because it allows the study to focus on the holistic and meaningful
characteristics of the school district site within which the teachers work (Yin,
2009). Furthermore, the case study inquiry
81
copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be
many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result;
relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge
in a triangulating fashion, and as another result;
benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to
guide data collection and analysis. (Yin, 2009, p. 18)
This proposed case study incorporated multiple sources of data including
surveys, interviews, artifact reviews, and observations to paint the best picture
possible of new teacher induction as it related to instructional technology.
Site Selection and Participants
The site and participants for this case study were chosen using purposive,
or purposeful, sampling where the researcher selects information-rich cases for
in-depth study through which one can learn a great deal about issues of
importance that are central to the purpose of the inquiry (Merriam, 2009). When
using purposeful sampling, one "creates a list of the attributes essential" to the
study, and then "proceeds to find the unit matching the list" (LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993, p. 70).
For this study, the essential attribute in selecting a school district in which
to study was its exemplary use of technology as defined by its receipt of the 1998
National School Board Association's Institute for Transfer of Technology to
Education (NSBA/ITTE) Video Salute for creating improved teaching and
82
learning environments using technology, its receipt of the first Reed Hundt
Award from the National School Board Association for excellence in the effective
use of technology in 1998, its receipt of the 2003 Malcolm Baldridge National
Quality Award, and its receipt of the 2004 Technology Leadership Network
Trailblazer Award.
More recently, this district has received the following accolades from the
educational community.
A seventh grade reading/language arts teacher was the 2013 recipient
of the Illinois Computing Educators (ICE) "Educator of the Year
Award" for his work embedding technology into his instruction.
Since 2011, 13 teachers have won the "Those Who Excel" award from
the Illinois State Board of Education, including a team of two teachers
who won for their work with assistive technology.
Nine of the district's 20 schools have been recognized by the United
States Department of Education as Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence.
Since 2011, 20 teachers have earned their National Board Certification.
Motorola Solutions Foundation has awarded nearly $110,000 to this
district in grant money to assist students who wish to further pursue
their interests in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The district's educational foundation awarded the schools with funds
to purchase iPads in May 2012.
Furthermore, in 2012 this district launched a STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) program to develop 21st century skills among all
of its middle school students.
83
After an extensive Internet search of national and state technology
awards, this researcher was able to find only two other awards given to Illinois
educators or school districts since 2004.
In 2006, a high school district north of Chicago won the Sylvia Charp
Award for District Innovation in Technology.
In 2007, an elementary school teacher in a northwest suburb of
Chicago was awarded the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE) Outstanding Leader Award.
Thus, the chosen school district was singled out most recently in Illinois as one
that is exemplary in the area of instructional technology. Finally, aside from
winning some of the most recent technology awards in the State of Illinois, this
district was large enough to provide an excellent sampling of Generation Y
teachers and district administrators from which to survey and interview.
"Snowball, chain, or network sampling is perhaps the most common form
of purposeful sampling. This strategy involves locating a few key participants
who easily meet the criteria you have established for participation in the study"
(Merriam, 2009, p. 79). The essence of this strategy revolves around asking one
group of people who then lead the researcher to other groups of people in which
to study. Purposeful sampling is common in qualitative research and involves
selecting sites and participants that will help the researcher address the focus of
the research study (Creswell, 2009; Krathwohl, 2009). Chained-referral sampling,
84
which also is termed snowball or referential sampling, involves seeking the
names of sites or individuals from others who may have knowledge of those
meeting the criteria established in the study (Krathwohl, 2009).
To find a school district that meets the criterion of exemplary in the area of
instructional technology, this researcher contacted the technology directors
working in the Regional Offices of Education (ROE) that surround the City of
Chicago. These directors were be contacted via email (see Appendix A). This
researcher then studied the school districts described as exemplary by the ROE
technology coordinators, looking for those districts that have earned distinct
honors and/or accolades. Although only one school district was studied for this
case, a more comprehensive list of districts was created to be used as a back up in
the event that the chosen district was not be interested in participating in this
study.
There were two distinct groups of participants within this case research.
The first group was teachers whose year of birth places them within the
boundaries of Generation Y. These are teachers who were born between the late
1970s and the mid 1990s (Rebore & Walmsley, 2010). These teachers were
identified by the district's assistant superintendent for curriculum and
instruction and the district's new teacher induction facilitator. The second group
85
of participants chosen for this study was the district administrators. Included in
this group were the superintendent, assistant superintendents, principals, and
district-level directors and/or coordinators. The administrators chosen were
those who are highly involved in the hiring process, the new teacher induction
program, and the supervision and evaluation of new teachers.
Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures
Multiple sources of data were used in this study. According to Yin (2009),
"A major strength of case study data collection is the opportunity to use many
different sources of evidence" (pp. 114-115). Additionally, using multiple sources
of data requires the development of converging lines of inquiry, also known as
the process of triangulation and corroboration. The objective for collecting
information from multiple sources should be aimed at corroborating the same
fact or phenomenon (Yin, 2009). Finally, data triangulation reduces the potential
problems of construct validity because "the multiple sources of evidence
essentially provide multiple measures of the same phenomenon (pp. 116-117).
These data sources used in this study were as follows:
Documents (district level)
Timeline used for new teacher induction across the school year (district
level)
A survey of Generation Y teachers who were hired between 2010 and
2013 (classroom level)
86
Interviews of school-based administrators (building level)
Interviews of district administrators (district level)
Observations of new teacher induction and mentor sessions.
An Electronic Survey was administered to all participating Generation Y
teachers in the selected school district. This survey was designed to provide a
description of trends, attitudes, or opinions these teachers have regarding their
use of instructional technology in the classroom. In addition, the survey assessed
the level of professional development they received from the district to build
upon prior knowledge received from pre-service teacher preparation courses and
to support their use of technology in the classroom. The survey was created
using SurveyMonkey™ which collected the teachers' responses in a way which
can be used for sorting, organizing, and filtering these data.
The survey questions were based on the following criteria. First, there
was a need to collect demographic information on each teacher including
The range of years in which the teachers were born;
The number of years the teachers have taught in the district (1-4 years);
The gender of each teacher;
The highest degrees earned by the teachers; and
The grade levels taught by the teachers.
Second, specific survey questions were developed based on the Rubric of
Essential Technology Conditions (RETC) which was created for the Nebraska
PreK through grade 12 schools (see Appendix B). This rubric is divided into five
87
sections. Each section has between three and seven key areas. The sections and
key area were coded as follows:
1. Technology Administration and Support
A. Vision planning and policy
B. Technology Support
C. Instructional technology staffing
D. Budget
E. Electronic data and support
F. Funding
2. Technology Capacity
A. Student technology equipment access
B. Teacher technology equipment access
C. Internet access
D. Video capacity
E. Distance learning; Conditions and capabilities
F. LAN/WAN
G. Curriculum-based tools
3. Educator Competencies and Professional Development
A. Educator use of technology
B. Leadership
C. Professional development
D. Models of professional development
E. Effective use of Electronic data support and system
F. Content of technology training
4. Learners and Learning
A. Student use of technology
B. Technology integration
C. Available technology curriculum
D. Community connection
E. Demonstrating effective use of technology in learning
88
5. Accountability
A. Student technology essential learnings
B. Administrator technology competency
C. Teacher technology competency
Data from 38 survey questions was collected and analyzed (see Appendix C).
Semi-structured focused interviews were conducted with the district
administrators throughout the school district. DeMarrais (2004) defines an
interview as "a process in which a researcher and participant engage in a
conversation focused on questions related to a research study" (p. 55). Yin (2009)
considers interviewing one of the most important sources of case study
information. In addition, he writes that "interviews will be guided conversations
rather than structured queries" (p. 106). For this specific case study, interview
questions will be developed based on the Nebraska RETC and coded similarly to
the Generation Y teacher survey questions.
The purpose of these interviews (see Appendix D for the interview
questions) was to explore the beliefs, experiences, knowledge, and points of view
of district administrators as related to the preparation of non-tenured Generation
Y teachers and their use of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment during the teachers' first few years of teaching. The semi-structured
nature of these interviews required the researcher to develop Level 1 questions
89
that were asked directly of the interviewee and that were based on the Level 2
questions which were the overarching questions guiding this research study
(Yin, 2009). The Level 1 questions were flexibly worded so the "interview is a
mix of more and less structured questions" (Merriam, 2009, p. 90) thus allowing
for some discussion between interviewer and interviewee. The interviews were
conducted over the telephone and took approximately 20 minutes. The
interviews were recorded and then transcribed by an internet service called
Rev.com (see Appendix E for the Letter of Consent).
On site observations of two new teacher induction sessions and one mentor
session took place during the course of this research study. Direct observations
were made that provided an opportunity to study the phenomena of new teacher
induction and mentor meetings as they pertained to technology planning,
instruction, and assessment in their natural settings (Yin, 2009). "Qualitative
observations are those in which the researcher takes field notes on the behavior
and activities of individuals at the research site" (Creswell, 2009, p. 181). In
addition, an observational protocol should be included to guide the researcher's
behavior which includes descriptive notes (Creswell, 2009).
For the observations, a T-Chart template was created to record
information. As described by Creswell (2009), this was a
90
single page with a dividing line down the middle to separate descriptive
notes (portraits of the participants, a reconstruction of dialogue, a
description of the physical setting, accounts of particular events, or
activities) from reflective notes (the researcher's personal thoughts such as
'speculation, feelings, problems, ideas, hunches, impressions, and
prejudices' Bogdan & Bilken, 1992, p. 121). (pp. 181-182)
Artifacts of school district documents related to instructional technology use
and new teacher induction processes were collected from the school district.
Creswell (2009) indicated that public and private documents may be valuable
data sources because they represent data that are a thoughtful creation of
participants in their own words. Such documents as new teacher induction
meeting agendas and related new teacher induction curricular maps, curriculum
documents pertaining to the use of instructional technology may be used to
support and/or assist in answering the research questions posed in this study.
To collect these artifacts, the researcher formally requested copies from the
district administration and the researcher searched the school district website.
Data Collection Procedures and Proposed Timeline
These data were collected over a four month period with the goal to start
collecting data at the start of the 2013-14 school year. Table 4 provides a timeline
detailing the sequence of data collection events. The events were intentionally
spread out to allow time for the ongoing analysis of data.
91
Table 4
Data Collection Timeline
Activity Data Type Weeks in
timeline
Anticipated
time required
Location
Discuss research
project with
superintendent
N/A 1-4
Spring, 2013
1 hour Superintendent's
office or on phone
Discuss research
project with
assistant
superintendent
for C & I
N/A 4-8
Summer 2013
1-2 hours Assistant
superintendent's
office or on phone
Discuss research
project with
director of
human resources
N/A 4-8
Summer 2013
1-2 hours Director of human
resources's office
or on phone
Scan district
website
Artifacts 8
Fall 2013
6-8 hours N/A
Request list of
non-tenured
Generation Y
teachers
Artifacts 9
Fall 2013
2 hours N/A
Request and
review related
artifacts
Artifacts 10
Fall 2013
10-12 hours N/A
Observe new
teacher
induction
meetings
Observation 8-18
Fall, Winter
2013
4-8 hours District meeting
rooms
Interview
district
administrators
Interview 10-15
Fall, 2013
10-15 hours Each
administrator's
office or on phone
Survey
generation Y
teachers
Survey 15-20
November,
2013
N/A Online
Using data generated by the technology directors of the Regional Offices
of Education that surround the City of Chicago, a list of school districts that were
92
considered exemplary in the use of instructional technology was created. The
district at the top of the list was contacted first to ascertain interest in
participating in this study. To do that, the researcher started with the
superintendent of schools (see Appendix H for telephone protocol). Once the
district superintendent agreed and signed the letter of cooperation (see
Appendix E), the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction was
contacted to begin the artifact collection process. This administrator also was
asked to sign a letter of participation (see Appendix F).
In addition, the new teacher induction facilitator was contacted. This
administrator also signed a letter of participation (see Appendix F). The
researcher and the new teacher induction facilitator discussed the use of the
district’s Generation Y teachers for this study, and a criterion for this list was
developed which was based on the birth years for the teachers that fall between
the late 1970s and the mid 1990s.
Once letters of cooperation were signed, the district's website was
explored for relevant documentation including, but not limited to, instructional
technology available to teachers and students in the classrooms, curriculum
documents that identify uses of technology, and new teacher induction
93
procedures. Pertinent documents related to current and previous new teacher
induction processes were requested, collected, and organized by the researcher.
Next, the researcher requested to attend one or more new teacher
induction meetings throughout the year, and he viewed the new teacher meeting
agendas in advance in order to ensure that these observations were related to
instructional technology. A T-chart was used to collect observations made at
these meetings. The researcher attended two new teacher meetings and one
mentor meeting during the school year. The focus was on the continued
inservicing of new teachers in the use of instructional technologies.
For the administrator interviews, the researcher utilized a semi-structured
interview process. The list of district administrators included the
superintendent, assistant superintendents, principals, and district-level directors
and/or coordinators. Demographic information was collected on each
administrator being interviewed. Table 5 provides the vehicle for collecting
administrator demographic information.
94
Table 5
Administrator Demographic Information
Current Position
Years in Education
Years in this position
Educational
Background
Masters
Masters+
PhD/EdD
Each specific administrator question was related to the Rubric of Essential
Technology Conditions (RETC), and the questions were coded using the same
coding system used for the teacher survey (see Appendix D). In addition, room
for discussion was allowed in order to keep the interview process semi-
structured. The interviews took place over the telephone and were recorded on
an iPad with the participants' permission.
The final piece of data collection was the Generation Y teacher survey.
The assistant superintendent and the new teacher induction facilitator created a
list of all Generation Y teachers. This list included their email addresses because
email was used to communicate with these teachers. Each Generation Y teacher
received an email describing the case study, an explanation of confidentiality,
95
and a second a link to the survey (created on SurveyMonkey.com). The teachers
were given approximately four weeks to complete the survey. After two weeks
of receiving the survey email, the teachers were sent a second reminder email
with the survey link.
Data Analysis Procedures
Simply stated, "data analysis is the process of making sense of these data.
And making sense out of data involves consolidating, reducing, and interpreting
what people have said and what the researcher has seen and read - it is the
process of making meaning" (Merriam, 2009, pp. 175-176). In this process, data
analysis is used to answer one's research questions. Merriam further explains
that "data analysis begins by identifying segments in your data set that are
responsive to your research questions" (p. 176). A segment of data can also be
called a "unit of data," a term Merriam uses interchangeably. According to
Lincoln and Guba (1985) a unit of data must meet two criteria:
1. It should be heuristic - that is, the unit should reveal information
relevant to the study and stimulate the reader to think beyond the
particular bit of information; and
2. The unit should be the smallest piece of information about something
that can stand by itself - that is it must be interpretable in the absence
of any additional information other than a broad understanding of the
context in which the inquiry is carried out. (p. 345)
96
The data analysis strategy used in this research study was what Yin (2009)
calls "Relying on theoretical propositions" (p. 130). This is a preferred strategy
because it follows the theoretical propositions that lead to a specific case study
which in turn leads to set a of research questions, reviews of the literature, and
possibly new hypotheses or propositions. In this particular research study, the
proposition that an effective new teacher induction program will assist
Generation Y teachers to use their innate technological skills to embed
technology into their instruction and the curriculum has led to the proposed
research questions as outlined in Chapters I and III of this study.
Creswell (2009) outlines a six step process for analyzing qualitative data:
1. Organize and prepare data for analysis;
2. Read through all these data to develop a general sense of the
information;
3. Begin a detailed analysis of these data through the process of coding;
4. Use the coding process to generate descriptions of "the people, places,
or events in a setting" (p. 189);
5. Determine how descriptions and themes will be represented; and
6. Interpret these data.
These steps, according to Creswell (2009), engage the researcher in the study of
qualitative data from the specific to the general, and it involves multiple layers of
analysis. These steps are "interactive in practice; the various stages are
interrelated and not always visited in the order presented (p. 185).
97
Organizing these data and reading through these data - The first step in
organizing these data was to sort and categorize all artifacts and documents into
groups such as New Teacher Induction, Technology Purchasing, and Technology
Use. A second step was to sort and filter the teacher survey data which will be
collected via SurveyMonkey™. Third, the recorded administrator interviews
were transcribed using a professional service (see Appendix J for Confidentiality
Agreement for Transcription Services). Observation field notes from the T-charts
were typed to make for easier reading. Creswell (2009) explains the importance
of reading through all of these data first to gain a general sense of the
information and to reflect on the overall meanings. General notations were
written in the margins to start the process of developing initial impressions, tone,
and emerging ideas which should be captured during this stage.
Process of coding these data and using these data to generate descriptions -
"Coding is the process of organizing the material into chunks or segments of text
before bringing meaning to information" (Rossman & Rallis, as cited in Creswell,
2009, p. 186). Miles and Huberman (1994) describe coding as a method to
analyze data. "To review a set of field notes, transcribed or synthesized, and to
dissect them meaningfully, while keeping the relations between the parts intact,
is the stuff of analysis" (p. 56). Continuing, Miles and Huberman write that
98
"Codes are tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or
inferential information compiled during a study" (p. 56).
Miles and Huberman (1994) present three approaches to coding:
1. predefined;
2. accounting-scheme; and
3. postdefined.
For this case study, the researcher utilized the predefined approach.
Incidentally, this is the approach that is "preferred" by Miles and Huberman. For
this approach, the researcher created a provisional "start list" of codes prior to
conducting the field work. Miles and Huberman state that the "list comes from
the conceptual framework, list of research questions, hypothesis, problem areas,
and/or key variables that the researcher brings to the study" (p. 58).
This researcher used two different conceptual frameworks in this study.
The first framework was the Nebraska Rubric of Essential Technology
Conditions (RETC). Based on this framework, codes were established for each of
the five sections and for all of the identified key areas. Table 6 lists the codes
developed from the RETC.
99
Table 6
RETC List of Codes
Key Area
Codes
RETC Section
1A-F Technology Administration and Support
2A-G Technology Capacity
3A-F Educator Competencies and Professional Development
4A-E Learners and Learning
5A-C Accountability
The second conceptual framework was the Illinois Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008). This framework was
divided into nine distinct areas, or standards, that will be used to evaluate the
quality and effectiveness of a school district's new teacher induction program.
Data collected relative to new teacher induction was coded based on each
standard. Table 7 lists the codes developed from this Illinois document.
100
Table 7
List of Codes - Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher
Induction Programs
Codes Standards
ST-1 Induction Program Leadership, Administration, and
Support
ST-2 Program Goals and Design
ST-3 Resources
ST-4 Site Administrator Roles and Responsibilities
ST-5 Mentor Selection and Assignment
ST-6 Mentor Professional Development
ST-7 Development of Beginning Teacher Practice
ST-8 Formative Assessment
ST-9 Program Evaluation
All coded data were merged into one master list of concepts based on
observable patterns or regularities. From this master list, themed categories were
developed and named based on four guidelines developed by Guba and Lincoln
(1981). These four guidelines are:
1. The number of people who mention something or the frequency with
which an incident arises in these data indicates an important
dimension.
101
2. The audience may determine what is important - that is, some
categories will appear to various audiences as more or less credible.
3. Some categories will stand out because of their uniqueness and should
be retained.
4. Certain categories may reveal "areas of inquiry not otherwise
recognized" or "provide a unique leverage on an otherwise common
problem." (p. 95)
Patton (2002) recommends that the transcribed interviews and field notes
be read and notated several times to ensure they have been indexed completely.
This will assist the researcher in developing the themed categories.
Determine how descriptions and themes will be represented and interpret these
data - Data triangulation was used to represent and interpret the multiple sources
of data that will be collected. "Triangulation using multiple sources of data
means comparing and cross-checking data collected through observations at
different times or in different places, or interview data collected from people
with different perspectives or from follow-up interviews with the same people"
(Merriam, 2009, p. 216).
For this case study, three sources of data were used:
1. Administrator interviews;
2. Generation Y teacher surveys;
3. Observations and artifact reviews (see Figure 3).
102
Figure 3. Data Triangulation
Significance of the Study
This study is significant for educational leaders in that it will identify the
best technology induction processes for Generation Y teachers who are first
entering the profession so they can appropriately embed technology into their
planning, instruction, and assessment and remain in the field of education for
many years to come. New teacher induction typically is the first professional
development activity a school district will provide for its newly hired teachers.
An organized, systematic approach is necessary in order to train new teachers to
use the school district's existing technology and incorporate the district's adopted
Observations and artifact reviews
Administrator Interviews
Nebraska Rubric
&
Illinois NewTeacher Induction Standards
Generation Y Teacher Surveys
103
technology plan. The majority of new teachers entering the profession from
traditional education programs are around the age of 22 thus making them
Generation Y teachers 1990s (Rebore & Walmsley, 2010).
Rebore and Walmsley (2010) state that
Since Generation Y embraces feedback and change, professional
development is not only desirable but also an activity to which each
school system must commit human and fiscal resources if it is to maintain
a skilled and knowledgeable staff. However, professional development
must be productive for the teachers - it should not be a repeat of
something Generation Y teachers just had in their teaching training. (pp.
96-97)
By identifying the components of effective new teacher induction in the
area of technology, this study can assist school leaders in developing similar
programs for use in their districts and with their new teachers. An effective new
teacher induction program does matter, and it has meaningful and lasting effects
on teacher quality and retention (Kelley, 2004).
Limitations
While this study attempts to gather data on an effective technology
induction program for new teachers, there may be limitations to this work. First,
the study of one school district may be limiting in scope. A larger sampling of
school districts could reveal more information regarding new teacher induction
programs and their focus on instructional technology. A second limitation may
104
be that the researcher will find school districts or individuals who are not willing
to participate in such a study. With the focus on a district that is considered
exemplary in the use of technology in the classroom, the lack of participation
may be limiting in the collection of data. Another limitation could be that the
non-tenured teachers who take part in the survey may be reluctant to answer the
questions openly and honestly. Although anonymity was guaranteed, there was
the chance that new teachers would be hesitant to answer some of the questions.
A fourth limitation is similar to the one above in that there may have been
administrators who were reluctant to answer questions openly and honestly
during the interviews which were recorded. Confidentiality was guaranteed, but
there was still the chance that administrators could have been defensive of their
induction program or may not have spoken freely due to fear of ramifications. A
fifth limitation may be related to the fact that only Generation Y teachers were
surveyed as opposed to all new teachers which would include those from the
Baby Boomer generation and Generation X. Although Generation Y teachers will
make up the majority of those participating in new teacher induction programs
in the near future, there will be others participating as well, and these other
teachers may have needs that are different than those identified for within
Generation Y.
105
Finally, with one researcher analyzing these data that will be collected,
there was the chance for bias, especially with the researcher's current beliefs and
understandings of technology use in the classroom. Specifically, this researcher
is an elementary school principal who is considered to be a leader in the use of
technology in his work. He has conducted administrator academy and district-
level workshops on this topic, he models the use of technology within his school
community, and he expects teachers to incorporate instructional technology into
their planning, teaching, and assessing of student learning. To help minimize
such bias, the researcher kept a journal throughout the data collection process.
The use of this journal allowed the researcher to write his ongoing reflections
regarding the potential for bias that may emerge as these data are being
collected. The objective was for the researcher to remain as unbiased as possible
while analyzing and interpreting these data.
Despite these limitations, educational leaders must be prepared to provide
new teachers with appropriate professional development in the use of
instructional technology in their classrooms as one important component for
retaining the best and brightest new teachers. This study, through surveys,
interviews, and other data collection methods, has presented a positivist
perspective on new teacher induction in the area of instructional technology. As
106
Merriam (2009) writes, "A positivist orientation assumes that reality exists 'out
there' and it is observable, stable, and measurable" (p. 8). There is no doubt that
most, if not all, teachers are using technology in their classrooms, and that new
teachers are receiving induction training upon their initial hiring in a school
district. Educational leaders must be prepared to provide new teachers with
appropriate professional development in the use of instructional technology in
their classrooms as one important component for retaining the best and brightest
new teachers.
Summary
This chapter has outlined the research methodology used to address the
primary research questions which are:
1. What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in order for them to appropriately utilize
technology in their planning, instruction, and assessment?
2. What recommendations should be made for all school districts in order
for them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best
uses of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment?
3. What are the implications for school leaders?
107
Identified in this chapter were the site selection, participants, data sources,
data collection procedures, proposed timeline, data analysis procedures, and
lastly, the strengths and limitations of the study.
108
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
Introduction
The purpose of this dissertation was: (1) to deeply study one school
district that is exemplary in the use of instructional technology to enhance
teachers' planning, instruction, and assessment; (2) to determine how this school
district trains its Generation Y teachers in the use of technology; and (3) to make
recommendations to educational leaders as to the best plans for teacher
induction in the area of educational technology. The ultimate goal of a successful
new teacher induction program is to retain the very best new teachers in the field
of education. According to Breaux and Wong (2003), "New teachers must be
trained if we want them to succeed; it is much better to train new teachers and
risk losing them than not to train them and risk keeping them" (p. v). In
addition, "An induction process is the best way to send a message to your
teachers, a message that you value them and want them to succeed and stay" (p.
v).
109
This dissertation will address the issues of instructional technology
competencies as related to new teacher induction with particular attention being
paid to Generation Y teachers. Generation Y teachers are those who were born
roughly between the years 1977 and 1995 (Behrstock & Clifford, 2009). The focus
on Generation Y teachers was deliberate as that “the majority of newly entering
teachers are those from traditional education programs who are around age 22.
These teachers are from the latest generation of adults entering the workforce:
Generation Y” (Rebore & Walmsley, 2010, p. 9).
Lovely and Buffum (2007) prefer the term "Millennials" when writing
about those born during the Generation Y years. In defining this generation,
Lovely and Buffum write,
They are in our classrooms as students, finishing student teaching at the
university, and beginning to apply for classroom jobs all across the nation.
They are well educated and open minded, and they love to collaborate.
They are entering the schoolhouse with huge expectations, and if they are
not pleased, they're only a click away from letting hundreds of friends
know about it. (p. 71).
These authors affirm that we all better prepare for their continued emergence as
students and as new teachers.
110
Research Questions
Based on the above stated purposes, the main research questions for this
paper are as follows:
1. What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in order for them to appropriately utilize
technology in their planning, instruction, and assessment?
2. What recommendations should be made for all school districts in order
for them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best
uses of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment?
3. What are the implications for school leaders?
The methodology used to collect data in order to answer these research
questions was three-pronged. Figure 4 illustrates the three methods of data
collection used for this study.
111
Figure 4. Three Methods of Data Collection
Description of the School District Being Studied
The District
The school district being studied for this research project is located in the
northwest suburbs of Chicago, Illinois. This is a large district as compared to
most other suburban districts in the Chicago area. It is an elementary district
serving students in grades pre-kindergarten through eight. The district is
comprised of 15 elementary schools, four junior high schools, one early
childhood center, and one alternative public day school.
The school district’s mission is “To produce world-class learners by building a
connected learning community.” According to the district’s webpage “Producing
world-class learners in today’s complex and fast-paced world is the single most
important responsibility of the district. Schools, teachers, administrators, and
Administrator interviews - District and school level
Artifact review and new teacher meeting observations
Generation Y teacher survey -online
112
support staff work together to ensure that all students enrolled in district schools
receive the highest quality of educational opportunities that will not only enable
them to meet or exceed state standards, but also will position them for success in
future educational and career endeavors” (December 31, 2013,
http://www.ccsd15.net/pages/CCSD15/About_District_15/AboutDistrict15)
The Students
The district has an enrollment of approximately 12,200 pre-kindergarten
through eighth-grade students. Students come from diverse socioeconomic and
ethnic/cultural backgrounds. Below is the breakdown, by percentages, of the
enrollment.
34.9% Low-Income (Low-income students come from families
receiving public aid; live in institutions for neglected or delinquent
children; are supported in foster homes with public funds; or are
eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches.)
20.0% Limited-English-Proficient (Limited-English-proficient
students are those students eligible for transitional bilingual
programs.)
12.3% IEP (IEP students are those students eligible to receive special
education services.)
8.5% Mobility Rate (Mobility rate is based on the number of times
students enroll in or leave a school during the school year.)
District data show that more than 75 languages or dialects are spoken in the
homes of the students. Table 8 below details the percentages of the student
ethnicity in the school district, the State of Illinois, and the United States.
113
Table 8
Percentages of Student Ethnicity
Ethnic Group District Illinois* USA**
American Indian/Alaska Native 00.5 00.3 1.0
Asian 14.8 4.2 5.0
Black/African American 03.7 18.2 17.0
Hispanic 33.0 23.6 22.0
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 00.1 00.1 N/A
White 46.3 50.7 55.0
Two or more races 01.7 2.9 N/A
*Retrieved 12/31/13 from http://isbe.net/research/pdfs/quickstats_2012.pdf
**Retrieved 21/31/13 from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Projections_2009_10.aspx?v=1
The Staff
The district currently employs 2,088 staff (which includes 883 certified
teachers, 60 administrators, 815 classified staff, and 330 substitute teachers). This
includes teachers who average 13 years of teaching experience; 78% of teachers
hold master’s degrees and above; and 76 teachers (4%) are certified by the
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, which is the highest teaching
credential available. In comparison, in 2012, the State of Illinois had 73,445 Pre-K
through grade 8 teachers of which approximately 5600, or 8%, were National
114
Board Certified. Nationally, there were 1,758,169 elementary teachers in the
United States (Retrieved 12/31/13 from http://www.edreform.com/2012/04/k-12-
facts/#teachers) and more than 100,000 National Board Certified teachers across
the U.S. (Retrieved 12/31/13 from http://www.nbpts.org/new-milestone).
The salary range for teachers in this district is $40,712 for beginning
teachers with no years of teaching experience and a Bachelor’s degree with no
additional hours of education to $104,480 with 24 or more years of teaching
experience and a Master’s degree with 30 or more additional hours of education.
District Finances
The FY2014 Budget is $149,128,942. Below are the expenditures and
revenue sources as reported on the district webpage.
Expenditures:
Educational—78.1%
Tort—0.8%
Operations/Maintenance—7.1%
Transportation—6.3%
IMRF/SS—3.7%
Capital Projects—4.0%
Not included:
Debt Retirement Fund
Transfers
Revenue Sources:
Local—80.1%
State—13.0%
Federal—6.9%
115
Not included:
Debt Retirement Fund
Transfers
The district’s 2012 Total Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) was
$3,589,968,277.
The district’s FY2013 operating expenditure per pupil was $12,069.76. For
the sake of comparison, the “Foundation Level,” which is intended to represent
the minimum level to adequately fund the education of a single pupil in the
Illinois K-12 public school system has been set in statue at $6,119 per pupil since
2010, and the state average is $11,456.70 (Retrieved 1/1/14 from
http://www.isbe.net/news/2013/oct7.htm). In addition the national average for
the current expenditure per pupil in America’s public schools is $11,184
(Retrieved 1/1/14 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmb.asp).
Results from the Semi-Structured Administrator Interviews
Semi-structured focused interviews were conducted with 13 school
district administrators. Eight district-level administrators were contacted via
email for an interview, and six interviews were conducted over the telephone. A
total of 19 elementary and middle school principals were contacted via email for
an interview, and telephone interviews were conducted with seven of the 19
principals. The 13 administrators were asked a series of 19 questions in the areas
116
of new teacher induction, general understanding of the characteristics of
Generation Y, and their school district’s training of new teachers in the area of
instructional technology. Their responses were recorded on an iPad and
transcribed by an independent online transcription service.
General demographic information was collected from each administrator
before the interview questions were asked. Table 9 details the demographic data
collected.
Table 9
Administrator Demographic Data
Administrative roles 7 Principals 6 District Administrators
Average years in education 23 years 30 years
Range of years in education 14 – 35 years 14 – 47
Average years in this
position
3.4 years 8 years
Range of years in this
position
1 – 7 years 4 – 13 years
Educational Background
Master’s Degree
Master’s Degree +30
PhD/EdD
2
5
0
1
3
2
Generation
Baby Boomer
X
Y
2
4
1
3
2
1
117
The following data represent the 19 interview questions and summaries of
the participants’ responses to each of the questions. For each question, the
district-level administrators’ responses are summarized first, followed by the
summaries of the principals’ responses.
1. Interview Question 1 - What technological skills do you look for when
hiring new teachers, especially as they pertain to the use of technology for
planning, instruction, and assessment?
Administrator 1: I think we look for kind of an attitude and a mentality
versus specific skills, so I don’t know that we actually ask for specific skills, but
we want them to have the right attitude, and we figure if they have the right
attitude, they can learn any skills that there’s a deficit in.
Administrator 2: This administrator does not participate in the hiring
process.
Administrator 3: I would have to say, in all honesty, none. We look for an
understanding of good instruction, best practices and the theory and practice
behind assessment. We are not really looking at tech skills.
Administrator 4: I’m not as concerned about their ability in technology
because I feel like I can always teach them the technologies that we use here, that
sort of thing. I’m much more interested in their organizational ability, their
118
understanding of different methods, their understanding of differentiating the
instruction, that sort of thing.
Administrator 5: I think our district looks for teachers who have strong
instructional practices, have had experience with using technology. I don't know
that they specifically look for or ask questions that relate to teacher's use of
technology when they make the hiring decision.
Administrator 6: This administrator does not participate in the hiring
process.
Principal 1: A familiarity with existing systems. The current system that
we’re using for communication is Google Docs. Anybody right now coming in
has to be conversant with that. They have to be conversant with documents,
spreadsheets, databases, presentation skills, the document camera, etc. The have
to have a good knowledge of what’s available out there in terms of videos, in
terms of websites, that kind of thing. The other piece that I think we’re using
quite a bit is social sites, things like Edmodo.
Principal 2: I look to see if they can integrate the technology within their
lessons rather than using the technology separately.
Principal 3: We ask for their comfort level with technology and their
experiences with technology whether it’s a new teacher or an experienced
119
teacher that’s coming in for the interview. What we typically look for is some
level of interaction with the technology as a resource in their classroom whether
it be in the area of a smart board or iPads or ELMOs and things like that.
Principal 4: I think it's important for teachers to have technology skills
that would extend far beyond simply knowing how to use a laptop as a word
processor or to use a search engine or basically an email station. For example, I
am looking at iPads. Taking iPads and really using, and knowing how to
evaluate good technology. Knowing how to look at different applications and
different software.
Principal 5: I would say to be honest I’m not spending too much time
looking at what their skills are. I’m making some assumptions that they have
tech skills beyond some of our veteran teachers just because they are fresh out of
school.
Principal 6: Not necessarily. Although we do ask questions about how
technology can enhance their teaching. I'm not looking specifically for anything,
just a general knowledge base.
Principal 7: We basically ask about record keeping, creating documents,
and then what programs for kids are they familiar with? We’ll get answers like
the ELMO projectors, SMART Boards, different i-Pad programs.
120
2. What are the delivery models that your district provides new teachers for
their new teacher induction?
Administrator 1: We definitely highlight differentiated instruction. We
highlight guided reading. We talk about the use of technology as a way to
differentiate, and you know, I never sat through the complete induction training,
so I’m not sure what else they emphasize. They meet probably quarterly. In
addition, they are expected to meet with their mentors on a more frequent basis.
Administrator 2: We provide a five day job-differentiated orientation.
There is an orientation just to get people familiar with where we are going, what
our targets are, and also major initiatives that are in the district. We also work
very hard to make sure that every teacher has a mentor, and they work with their
mentors during orientation week to get started with their classroom and setting
things up. We also do curricular sessions, particularly in math and literacy. We
also provide an introduction to instructional technology in the district during
orientation. In addition to that, we have a special session for the new people to
explain the program, expectations the district has of them, as well as kinds of
support that they can expect to have during the year.
Administrator 3: It's a five-day program and it ranges from nuts and
bolts to time in their classroom with their mentor. It's a pretty comprehensive
121
welcome to the district and “Here is what you need to get up to speed on.” For
example, the Department of Instruction takes the day which starts out with an
overview of the Department of Instruction and what it's responsible for, and then
breakout sessions in math and literacy for the grade level that you'll be teaching,
in a more in-depth piece. There's a cultural competency piece in there because of
the diversity of the district. There's an overview, “Welcome to the district, here's
our goals, here's our mission.”
Administrator 4: I’m going to tell you from my point of view what I do,
and that is we have an introductory session where we just for about an hour just
talk to them about what our department does, and provides for them for support
and that sort of thing. Then we actually do hands on computer training to teach
them the computerized IEP program that we use, and we also do hands on
training on the computer on using the progress monitoring tools that we use.
Administrator 5: Well, there's a mentoring program and teachers have a
mentoring relationship. It's pretty extensive where they meet on a regular basis
work together, collaborate together. The mentor has a lot of interaction with the
new teacher. So they have a pretty extensive mentoring process and there are
sort of like I believe there are workshops or sort of some specific programs where
teachers after school meet and then they get some workshops.
122
Administrator 6: Not familiar with the New Teacher Induction Program.
Principal 1: We do a week-long orientation for teachers and then there is
a mentor that is assigned. We have gone to the Danielson model so that teachers
are trained in the Danielson framework and they get supported throughout the
year. It’s a very reflective process. From what I’ve seen in the district, there’s an
obligatory first year and then a potential second year that teachers can opt for if
they need to or if they’re recommended by the administrator.
Principal 2: All of our new teachers are partnered with a mentor teacher,
so if that mentor teacher uses technology in the classroom, then they would have
direct mentoring opportunities from the teacher that they’re partnered with. We
do five full days of new teacher training. I know what all the days are because
they give us an agenda, so they have an overview of the school district. They
meet all the cabinet members and what their departments about and how they
can be of service to them as a new teacher, and technology is incorporated into
that. They have some training on basic technology that they need for their job, so
that would be like email systems, student information system that’s incorporated
into their training, and then they do a lot of more in depth training on the
various curricular areas.
123
Principal 3: I am not very familiar with the delivery models. I do know
what they do get over the summer when they have their new teacher training
that there is training on specific things with the laptop that they would get and
how to utilize that. Outside of that, there are other opportunities for tech training
but there isn’t to my knowledge enough probably being done at the new teacher
level when these people are hired.
Principal 4: (New to this district) I know a little bit about it. I hired a
part-time kindergarten teacher after the school year started, and then, I do have a
second year who's participating, and year two, well I mean, you're going to
district meetings with new teachers. You're also spending time working with
your mentor teacher, so that being the broad understanding that I have of the
new teacher induction program.
Principal 5: They’ll start out prior to the school year starting a week or so
before the school year starts. They’ll have an extensive multiple day nuts and
bolts of what to expect in our district. One of those days they’ll meet their
building mentor, they’ll have lunch with them and this is all part of the structure.
Then they’ll come back to our school, and that day is like the scheduled day that
the new teachers and the mentors will meet with the principal.
124
Principal 6: They attend a new teacher induction week-long training that
covers a variety of topics, technology being one of them. Throughout the year,
first year teachers, who we call level one teachers, go back throughout the school
year for additional training days. They also have very specific requirements that
they must meet throughout the year in regards to working with their mentors.
Lesson plans, observation notes, things of that nature.
Principal 7: They have a really intensive induction teacher week where
the teachers throughout the week start early and go to all kinds of workshops,
but I really don’t know if it’s anything hands on. I don’t even know if they have
an actual one on technology to tell you the truth.
3. What, if any, is your role in the planning of the new teacher induction
process in your district?
Administrator 1: I have a part in it but I don’t really plan it. It is done by
our new teacher induction facilitator.
Administrator 2: I plan it. I do the planning and the scheduling.
Administrator 3: I work collaboratively with the new teacher induction
facilitator. She generates a scheduled based on exit criteria from the teachers the
year before, what sessions were most helpful, what sessions didn't they get that
they wish they would have gotten. She shares all that feedback with us from our
125
sessions and then we tweak our sessions and plan them based on the needs of
the group coming in. It's just an ongoing process in terms of what's needed.
Administrator 4: I work with all of the student services staff for one day.
I don’t have much say in the other days of new teacher induction. On an
ongoing basis I have a lot of input on new teacher workshops related to my
department.
Administrator 5: I don’t have a role in the planning.
Administrator 6: No role in planning new teacher induction.
Principal 1: I help in selecting the mentor because I evaluate most of the
new teachers. We use a parallel process based on the Danielson model.
Principal 2: The only planning that I’m involved in is the time that’s
allocated to me at the building level, about three hours of their … I would guess
it’s probably about 30 hours of training, and I get I think about three hours with
them.
Principal 3: Other than the half day where they come over to the building
level or site based training, everything else is done at the district. The district
staff gives us an outline of items to cover with our new teachers but typically, it’s
something as simple as walk through the building and to their classroom, going
126
over expectations providing any other additional information to help them feel
comfortable in the building.
Principal 4: (New to this district) No role in planning this year.
Principal 5: My only planning would be to select who I think might be
the best mentor.
Principal 6: We're able to review the week long induction topics and give
our feedback as principals. That information was sought when we had someone
new take over the role, so we were able to give our feedback there. One
afternoon of that week is spent in the building with principals so we can go over
building level topics that we need the teachers to know.
Principal 7: We have a person at the district office who plans it, and it’s a
whole week long thing about culture and the different curricula. It’s all
scheduled, and then there is some time slotted for the new teachers to come back
to me, and I in-service them on my building.
4. What, if any, is your role in conducting the new teacher induction process in
your district?
Administrator 1: I give the introduction to the district. I talk about the
history of the district, the expectations that we have for teachers, and the kind of
expectations that we have generally for professionals in the organization.
127
Administrator 2: I provide new teacher workshops, as well as run the
orientation. This year there are four new teacher workshops. And the first one, I
actually have found a person who facilitates. That is a full-day release.
Our induction program here has two levels. We have level one, which is for
teachers who have two years or less prior teaching experience that come into the
district, and then we have a level two for people who have more than two years
of experience coming into the district. Our feeling is, the people who we target
with the most intense work are the brand-new people, because they're the ones
that research has shown need the most support, and also are still in a formative
stage in their development as teachers, so that it makes sense to ground them in
what we feel is best practices early on in the district. So with that, the new
teacher workshops, three of them are for level one new teachers. The level two
new teachers are invited to only one. And I try to be very flexible about that,
because we define new teacher as a new professional hire. So among our "new
teachers" would be psychologists, social workers, people of that nature that don't
have traditional classroom jobs. And so when it comes to the new teacher
workshop that is required for all of the new hires, I'm very flexible if what we're
doing, usually it's classroom based. The majority of our new hires are classroom
teachers. So when we have a situation where it's totally not going to be that
128
useful for somebody to attend the workshop, we offer them the opportunity
either through their coordinator, sometimes the coordinator will provide an
alternative, and other times we, if they have gone to things outside the district in
their field, if they can show the evidence of completion, we accept that.
Administrator 3: Our department has one full day and then we have little
pieces on the other days.
Administrator 4: I only conduct the portion related to my department.
Administrator 5: I'm given an hour with the new teachers, and when I
speak to them I introduce myself. I give sort of an overview of what we use in
the district. I give some information about our philosophy of the use of
technology. I talk about sort of our goals and our guidelines and then I make
sure that they understand that I'm available to help them and that they have my
contact information, they know what things I can help them with and then
beyond that one hour with them it's up to the new teachers to sort of reach out
and ask questions and meet with me if they need that or have me help them with
a project or whatever.
Administrator 6: Not involved in conducting new teacher induction
meetings.
129
Principal 1: Only in orienting the teachers to the building. Things that
have to do for instance with English language learners, and sometimes in
materials, sometimes with some of the staff development. For the most part, the
district handles that centrally. There’s a coordinator for induction that pretty
much handles the process from beginning to end.
Principal 2: No, none of that. We attend a really nice luncheon.
Principal 3: No. A lot of it’s done with our personnel department, our
department of instruction, the union.
Principal 4: Did not play a role in conducting new teacher induction
meetings this year.
Principal 5: The only thing I do is meet with the new teachers in the
afternoon during one of the new teacher days. I make myself available and we
set up times. Other than that there may be a time when we are invited to come
over for the luncheon, one of those days.
Principal 6: No. We don't participate in anything other than the half-day
when they come in to our building.
Principal 7: I spend some time in my building with the new teachers.
That’s it, unless they would maybe ask me to present. I think over the years,
they’ve had principals present portions of it, but I’ve never done that.
130
5. What were your experiences with new teacher induction in previous
districts?
Administrator 1: I did not have experiences in other districts.
Administrator 2: I actually had none.
Administrator 3: When I worked as a curriculum coordinator in my
previous district we worked on delivering staff development to new teachers.
Administrator 4: I had some, but it was minimal compared to this district.
Administrator 5: I did not. The previous district that I worked in did not
have a process for new teacher induction or an extensive year long mentorship
for new teachers.
Administrator 6: No I did not.
Principal 1: I have participated sometimes in other districts in the
beginning of the year presentations and orienting new teachers to the district.
But, this district is much more thorough. There is a much more formalized
process here.
Principal 2: I had experiences in another district with new teacher
induction but it was on a smaller scale than here.
131
Principal 3: Yes and it’s a very similar format where really a lot of what’s
happening is at district level. I’ve had opportunities to present information,
maybe the day in the life of a teacher or a specific content area.
Principal 4: Yes. I was part of new teacher induction in my previous
district. That included working directly with teachers in the new teacher
induction program, again first and second year teachers. It was an intensive
week prior to the beginning of school. My primary role there was to spend a day
talking about the nuts and bolts of professional learning communities and how
that fit into the school district that I had previously been a part of. Then I had the
opportunity at some of the Tuesday afternoon meetings, for example, to present
and work with new teachers after school hours in the formal sense.
Principal 5: Yes, and we had a very good one too in my previous district
that was similar to ours here were it was a two year program. The one thing I
really liked about that other program was that we assigned mentors to new
teachers and it was for the first half of the year. Then at that point there was an
opportunity for new teachers to possibly select a new mentor.
Principal 6: I was not an administrator in my previous district, but I
know that it was a one day shot in a huge auditorium for new teachers.
Principal 7: No I have not.
132
6. Are you pleased with the current new teacher induction process in your
district? Please explain why or why not.
Administrator 1: Yes, I am. I think it’s been successful. I think the
teachers that have been through the process are more effective with kids, and
they tend to reach a proficient level much more quickly than some other teachers
that haven’t gone through the same kind of program, in my experience.
Administrator 2: Yes. For the most part, yes. Although I'm the kind of
person that I see the good things, but I also see the opportunities for
improvement. There are a couple of things that, if the world was ideal, I would
have them done differently. But you work within a culture. Every district has a
culture, and you have to work within that culture. And you can't always change
culture. Although I will say that since 1998 I think the program has had an
impact on the culture. Because prior to 1998, people basically worked in
isolation. There was not a real lot of collaboration going on in the district. I've
seen a great improvement in teachers' ability to collaborate and share over the
years. There aren't people who are hoarding secrets and not sharing their
professional information with other people. And I think that's been an
enrichment for the whole district.
133
Administrator 3: I am pleased with it. It’s not perfect, but because it
evolves every year and that it's flexible enough that it's meant to meet the needs
of that group coming in. They don't just roll over the old agenda and force fit the
new people into it, depending on the backgrounds of the people coming in. Are
they mostly classroom teachers? Are they mostly specialists? Are they mostly
bilingual teachers? Yes, there's certain nuts and bolts that have to be in the
program every year, but it also allows for the flexibility every year to get people
what they need. On a negative piece, what I think is a little unrealistic becasue
it's five full days and it's unpaid for new teachers, and I think that's just a little bit
unrealistic in this day and age.
Administrator 4: Yes, I am. I think it’s important that everybody know
what the expectations of the district are. I think that it’s important really in a lot
of situations for even the student services staff that would get the same
information that the gen-ed teachers are getting so that when they’re then
consulting or observing in the classrooms, those kinds of things, they know what
the teachers have heard, and so they’re all speaking the same language.
Administrator 5: I think overall I'm pleased. I think the mentoring is
extremely important. I think they work hard to bring the principals up to speed
in terms of the importance of mentoring. But, as far as specifically working with
134
the teachers for instructional technology I don't think an hour, out of all the time
that they spend with the new teachers, I don't think an hour for the entire school
year is really enough.
Administrator 6: No opinion on this topic.
Principal 1: Yes, it seems to be supportive for the new teachers.
Principal 2: I am pleased. As teachers come in, they have an intensive
training at the beginning of August, which is really nice, so they have these two
pretty intense weeks where they’re receiving a lot of information, and then they
fill up two additional weeks to be in their classroom, apply some of the
information that they’ve learned, ask questions, have those a-ha moments where,
okay, now I can come at what they told me with what I actually need to do.
Principal 3: Yes. I think they do a really great job of covering all areas.
Like I said, it’s very overwhelming as a new teacher to come in but those five
days, you’re able to make connections, you’re able to get a lot of information. The
mentor for each of the teachers is kind of available on a few of those days not
only to connect with at lunch but then they have some additional time together
to just kind of break down some of the information.
Principal 4: Yes. I think it's been an interesting experience for me from the
standpoint of where I had come from.
135
Principal 5: Yes actually I am. I feel like they have really come in with a
good understanding of how to start the school year off. Then there are built in
days when they are with other new teachers across the district or other new
teachers and their mentors throughout the entire school year. There are set days
where they will be relieved from classroom duty to go to learn about something
else or to follow up and see how things are going. They have this whole official
program that lasts the entire school year. Then in Year 2 they still offer additional
opportunities but they are voluntary.
Principal 6: I am. I think they do a great job. They also send out a survey
to principals every year, asking how we think it went, if there's any gaps we
believe the candidates are coming in missing, and they try to revisit that every
year when they plan the next year's sessions.
Principal 7: Very pleased, very supportive. Now with technology, I think
there’s room for improvement, but they just added another person in the district,
so it’s still evolving, but as far as the whole new teacher mentoring system, it’s
very solid.
7. If not, what would you like to see added or changed?
Administrator 1 - 4 and 6: No responses to this question.
136
Administrator 5: Yeah. I would like beyond that hour [of technology]. I
would like an opportunity to work with the teachers throughout the year
perhaps giving me an opportunity for at least once or twice to be part of the after
school meetings that they have or the workshops that they do. I would like to be
in front of them more than just once.
Principals 1 - 7: No responses to this question.
8. What are the basic areas of concentration that are included in your current
new teacher induction plan?
Administrator 1: No response to this question.
Administrator 2: The curriculum, planning for instruction. Basically if
you look at the four domains of Charlotte Danielson's framework, those are the
main focus. Everything that we do falls under those four domains. Getting
familiar with district technology is a key piece. Learning to use data to drive
instruction is another. Teacher reflection that's in depth and structured, because a
lot of people have varying natural abilities to reflect, is important. But a lot of
people don't do it in a systematic way, so we try very hard in the program to
give teachers an opportunity to engage in in-depth reflection with peers.
Administrator 3: There's a technology piece. There is nuts and bolts in
terms of, "Here's your insurance benefits. This is how it works. If you need to file
137
this, this is where you ..." like a how-to. That's handled by the personnel
department. I talked about the cultural competency piece in there. There is small
amount of time set aside for the teachers’ union to address the new staff. There's
a luncheon for all the new teachers, their mentors and the administrators and the
Board of Education. There are custom sessions in there for specific areas, such as
speech and language teachers or hearing itinerant teachers or special education
teachers, self-contained bilingual teachers, ESL teachers. They all have
customized sessions within there.
Then there is a significant amount of time set aside within those five days
to meet with your district-assigned mentor. Then the last several years, we've
had a session where we have had teacher volunteers talk about setting up a
classroom. These are model classrooms where teachers have agreed to have their
classroom completely set up before teacher orientation. This might be what a
kindergarten looks like. This could be what a primary classroom looks like. This
is a good way to set up an intermediate classroom or a junior high math
classroom and … just to give them ideas before they get started.
Administrator 4: Okay. Generally, this is what I know, which is probably
not a lot, but classroom management, cultural competency, differentiated
instruction. I think that’s pretty much all I know for certain.
138
Administrator 5: The basic areas of concentration for new teacher
induction are curriculum, classroom management.
Administrator 6: No response to this question.
Principal 1: Off the top of my head, I know that classroom management is
part of it, technology is part of it, data management is a big part of it, district
systems, I think, are incorporated into that, some of the mandates are a big part
of that piece. I think they do some materials. They do curriculum presentations.
Because we have a large population of English language learners, that’s always a
big portion of the induction. There’s even some financial literacy and some about
the contract.
Principal 2: Curriculum, technology. They have an overview of all of the
cabinet members’ responsibilities in the district. They have a benefits group that
applies to the teachers personally. They do some of the safety training. The
majority of it is curriculum. It gets into a little bit of special education and RTI,
too.
Principal 3: I know personnel does a lot of discussions of the contract and
kind of following the daily expectations of the teachers. Department of
instruction will cover just basically stepping into a building for the first time,
what to expect, what can they do, what are the resources available. Obviously
139
within the department of instruction, there are a lot of different resources.
They’re provided binders with standards and obviously, it’s not enough time to
review everything but they do review specific standards and they may break
them into elementary versus intermediate versus junior high teachers and then
provide them specific information in those areas from the department of
instruction.
I know the business department comes in and talks about purchase
orders, how to complete purchase orders and what the pay and everything else
looks like. Our superintendent office comes in and welcomes them, talks to them
about our school district. I know in the past they’ve taken a bus tour of the
different areas in our school district so that the new teachers coming in can see
where the children are coming from, where the different schools are within our
boundaries so those are just some of the things that I know are covered in those
meetings.
Principal 4: (New to the district) I am not very familiar with it yet.
Principal 5: They’ll certainly talk about reading, they’ll talk about our
student data system and how that works. They are taking attendance things like
that because those things are all standard across the district. They’ll talk about
that and classroom management. Then they’ll have more conversations I believe
140
about different ways to communicate with parents and the importance of that.
There is no set way that you have to have a website or something like that.
Principal 6: There is a lot of information on the culture of the district,
expectations for professionalism, a little bit of history of the district and what
we're all about, our mission. There are breakout sessions that are pertinent to
each teacher; they're broken apart by group. They look at teachers that have no
experience and are teaching in the classroom, teachers who are special ed,
teachers who are specialists like music, PE, art. They break all those groups
apart. All classroom teachers would get training on any of the new reading
initiatives or math initiatives that might be going on in the district. This year they
all got training in Common Core standards.
Principal 7: They introduce them to all the different key people who they
would need to talk to, to get information. They show them the district website,
where all the forms are, where to find things, who to ask if you have questions.
They talk about how to get a substitute through our Aesop system, taking
attendance through our SIS K-12 system. They talk about building culture. They
talk about a little bit of cultural competency since our buildings are getting so
diverse. They talk about the different curriculum, math, English, common core.
They also do a workshop on discipline, behavior management.
141
9. Are there areas that are over-emphasized or could be reduced/eliminated?
Administrator 1: Sure. I think that five days at one time is a lot, and I
think if it was spread out over the course of the year after they’ve had more
practical experience. I think that that would probably be more efficient and
better. I think that there’s probably a little too much administration, managerial
kinds of things involved in five days, and I think that there could be more real
time kind of staff development as they go throughout the year versus so much at
the beginning.
Administrator 2: To be honest, I don't, especially because, as I said, we
have this differentiation between level one and level two. I feel that what we
offer is relevant and important.
Administrator 3: Yeah, I think the time allowed for teachers in their
classroom could be cut back from the five-day mandatory and then they could be
just like all the other teachers who go in there and get their classroom ready on
their own time on different hours.
Administrator 4: No. I don’t think so.
Administrator 5: No. What I would like to see is I would like to see a
greater connection with curriculum to technology tools.
Administrator 6: No response to this question.
142
Principal 1: Common core frankly. It could be underemphasized. The
way that it’s going is such flux. It’s such, I think, an unsteady approach. We don’t
know what the assessments are going to be and yet some districts are going in
head-first with that. I think we could use a little bit of a waiting game with that.
Principal 2: No. You know, we do a really great job here.
Principal 3: Not to my knowledge. I asked one of our new teachers. I just
kind of blatantly asked how is everything, are you getting what you need out of
it and typically the answer is they’re getting exactly what they need out of those
days. I haven’t heard anything otherwise from the new teachers that I’ve hired.
Principal 4: No response to this question.
Principal 5: Not that I’m aware of.
Principal 6: I think some of the business pieces of it could probably be
taken care of in a different way. That would be the paperwork aspect.
Principal 7: I don’t really … I can’t really answer that question to tell you
the truth.
10. Are there areas that need to be increased or further developed?
Administrator 1: I really think classroom management. I think
instructional planning and then instruction in the classroom, delivery models
and specific strategies for making sure kids are learning and providing
143
interventions for them. I think that through assessment, I think those are all the
areas that will help them be more effective in making sure kids are learning at
high levels.
Administrator 2: What I'd like to see increased are the things that are
difficult to do. One of the things I'd really like to see would be new teachers to
have more time to work with their mentors, more time for mentors to go in and
observe new teachers, more time for new teachers to go and observe other
teachers, more time for professional conversations. The way it works, and this is
very typical of a program that doesn't have any release time, because we really
don't, other than this one workshop we're doing on classroom management,
which is the one I found a presenter for, that's a full day release. But other than
that, there's no other release for the new teachers to go to training. One of the
things I try to emphasize to mentors from the get-go is that they are professional
growth facilitators. That is key. They're supposed to take the new teacher where
they're at developmentally and help them move forward, to become more
effective more quickly, and to gain a sense of confidence and efficacy as soon as
possible.
Administrator 3: Not really. By that fifth day, you get that glazed-over,
eyes glazed-over look. They're only going to absorb so much.
144
Administrator 4: I don’t really know.
Administrator 5: What I would like to see is I would like to see a greater
connection with curriculum to technology tools. When the new teachers work
with their mentor teachers their engagement with instructional technology many
times depends on their mentor and how engaged in technology they are and
how much they encourage the new teacher to kind of either fly and run with
ideas or work together to do some new things. I've seen mentors say oh you're
the young one, help bring me up, help bring my skills up. Let's work together so
that you can teach me things and help me feel more confident, but that is the
exception rather than the rule.
Administrator 6: No response to this question.
Principal 1: Certainly, the cross-curricular kind of thinking should be
much more emphasized.
Principal 2: I don’t believe so. I think that would be a great question to
ask new teachers. I think from my standpoint, my teachers come in, and they’re
really well prepared.
Principal 3: I think our district is a little bit behind in the area of
technology or how it’s being rolled out. We’re doing a good job of trying to get
there but for example, we have 3,200 new iPads. They’re not in our hands yet
145
because the district is trying to figure out how to roll out or deploy those out to
our buildings. When teachers come in, it would be nice to have that technology,
some days where we can discuss how to utilize that type of technology as a
resource in the classroom, going over apps, going over ways that other teachers
have used that.
Principal 4: No response to this question.
Principal 5: To be honest I don’t know about what has been their
emphasis this past year or this summer or during the school year.
Principal 6: I would like to see them spend a little more time on helping
teachers understand the special ed process and RTI process. Also, working with
bilingual students, understanding the WIDA and how they should use that in the
classroom with their students. Whether they are in a bilingual classroom or not,
pretty much everyone has a bilingual student or two, or ESL student.
Principal 7: Sure, yes. They’re rolling out iPads throughout the district,
so I think that would be an area that they could definitely add to.
11. Does your district's new teacher induction process extend past the very
beginning of the school year? Why or why not?
Administrator 1: No response to this question.
146
Administrator 2: Yes, it goes on all year. Well, actually, we have a two-
year program. The first year is required as a condition of employment for all new
employees. Whether they're level one or level two, they must participate. They
must work with a mentor. The second year is an optional program for people
who are in their second year in the district. It is open to any second year teacher,
whether they are level one or level two.
Administrator 3: All the teachers new to the district, regardless of their
years of experience, have to do those five days. Then they either go into level one
or level two. Level one is a brand new teacher. Level two is, “I'm an experienced
teacher, but I'm new to the district.” Then there are different sessions throughout
the year for level one and level two teachers.
Administrator 4: Yes. They have ten after school meetings with
workshops that are like an hour and a half to two hours long. Then they have
two all day workshops, too.
Administrator 5: Yes. It does. I believe it's a full year. The mentor
program is a full year.
Administrator 6: No response to this question.
Principal 1: Ours go through the whole year. Like I said, there’s a
possibility of a second year. Yes, there are scheduled meetings that the teachers
147
have monthly. Their support groups that they participated. Yeah, it’s a pretty
intense year process here.
Principal 2: We have after school training. We have a whole schedule for
that. Not only do we have level one mentors who are for first year teachers, but
we have level two mentor opportunities. Those would be teachers who are in
their second year, and it’s optional if they participate. I think if I remember
correctly, on the schedule that they have at least one additional all day training
that they go to in the first year as well.
Principal 3: Absolutely. It goes throughout the year. They’re able to meet
with their mentors. There are new teacher trainings or orientations that happen a
few times during the year. There’s kind of homework that has to be done when
they come in that they do with their mentors. The mentor for that person even
has homework as far as have you been able to observe this person, have
provided feedback on this? There are different spots throughout the year where
there’s meetings that take place over at district level where these people get
together again and review some of the things that are going on. Yeah, it
definitely extends beyond the first few days of school.
Principal 4: No response to this question.
148
Principal 5: Correct, it goes all year. Mandatory is a strong word; it’s
expected that you need to attend all these for the entire year, and then it’s
voluntary for the second year.
Principal 6: Level one teachers are required to attend different sessions
throughout the year. For example, they have their first session coming up next
week that the new teachers are required to attend. They have those three or four
times a year. They have to turn in paperwork, lesson plans, reflections logs,
throughout the year as well, just to, I guess, hold them accountable for going
through the process with their mentor. Our level two teachers, those would be
ones that have more experience, they actually choose to participate or not. They
might have meetings scheduled throughout the year during the school day, but
more often than not, they hold those after school. They kind of come together, all
the level two teachers and just use each other as a network and share how things
are going.
Principal 7: Yes, it does. When I hire a new teacher, I’m expected to get a
mentor for the teacher, and there’s different levels. Level one is a brand new
teacher. Level two is a second year, and the mentors are required to attend
meetings and turn in reflections and paperwork along with the new teacher, so
it’s very structured.
149
12. What do you believe are the characteristics of Generation Y teachers?
Administrator 1: I think that they are a little bit more free spirits. I think
they don’t tend to have the same loyalty to authority or organizations that maybe
previous generations had. I think they’re maybe a little bit more open minded. I
think they’re a little bit more globally and culturally sensitive. I think they’re
socially minded more so than maybe previous generations. I don’t think they
necessarily dress the way that professionals did that came before them.
Administrator 2: I believe that overall they are assertive. I believe that
they are enthusiastic. Many of them, I think, are coming to teaching with a
passion to do this work. It's not just a job. On the other hand, I think that they're
very conscious of...They want opportunities to interact with each other. They
don't want someone telling them what to do. They want someone facilitating
them.
They want to feel that there's some control, that they have some control.
The only negative I sometimes see is they don't always recognize that they're not
the only one, that things don't always get tailored just to your needs. Many of
them were reared in families where children really were the center of the family,
especially because these are middle class. We usually get middle class people
coming into our profession. So these kids, I mean, they were the center of the
150
universe, and they continue to think they are, and so they expect everything to
revolve around them, and it doesn't. But for the most part, I find them very open
and enthusiastic. I think they're willing to put their thoughts on the table. I think
they're less defensive. They are willing to ask questions.
Administrator 3: Most of them come in terms of being tech-savvy, in
terms of knowing how to use the equipment, so the hardware part, they're pretty
up and adept on. My experiences have been because for the most part,
technology has been part of their lives, I think that many of them are shocked
when they get into a school setting and what they're used to wanting in
technology and just having. I think they're sometimes surprised between the gap
between what exists in the real world and what exists inside school classroom. I
think they're a little surprised about that.
I think to some extent, they're somewhat naive because they see the
smaller piece of the picture, but not the real big picture. “Why can't we open up
the network wide open? My college, it was wide open but now in my classroom,
it might not be.” A little bit short-sighted sometimes.
Administrator 4: Oh, I am not going to say that I am an expert in this at
all, other … just some of my own experiences. They’re kind of an entitled group.
They tend to have, let’s say lower expectations of themselves and higher
151
expectations of others. And then but they’re also very technologically savvy and
want things done very fast, that sort of thing.
Administrator 5: I think they are risk takers. I think they don't mind
experimenting. They have confidence even if they don't know something, they're
more likely to keep trying and keep pushing forward. They are not easily
frustrated. They are interested in innovative ways to teach. I think those are some
basic characteristics.
Administrator 6: I find that a lot of them, their social skills are very
different than my age group. Because they use social networking so much, I find
a lot of them express themselves differently. I can only speak for the people I
know, but they seem to be a bit more introverted and very comfortable with
technology, though. Very, very, very comfortable with technology.
Principal 1: They are passionate about what they do. What they do has to
have meaning. They balance their lives, their work life with their personal life,
and their enjoyment seems to be very important. They are very technologically
adept. I think they were born into the digital age. They feel very comfortable in
that arena. They’re open, for the most part to a diversity that they find in
principle. In practice, they don’t necessarily have that experience which means
that they will say that, yes they are comfortable working with students from
152
different and diverse background, that they’re comfortable working with people
from different perspective in life. When they actually encounter them, they don’t
necessarily have those skills.
Other characteristics, let’s see, they’re very idealistic sometimes but
they’re self-centered as well. They grew up in, I think, as a group of people that
were praised all the time. They don’t always take criticism well. They don’t
always get reframed very well because they’re very confident and they grew up
very confident, sometimes the reframing is a little bit of an eye-opener for them.
Principal 2: All of my hires that I had that are now 23 through 30, all of
my teachers are amazing hard working people. They are student focused, eager
to learn. They accept practices because they know they’re the right thing to do.
They challenge practices if they’re not making a difference for their students.
They invest their time where they’re going to get kind of the most bang for their
buck, so they’re not just going to go through the motions just because they’ve
been told to. In the area of technology, they embrace technology. They’ll
experiment with technology, fast learners. We’re fortunate in my building. We
have interactive whiteboards in almost all of the classrooms. We have access to i-
Pads. We have eight computers in every classroom. We have our whole g-mail
system where you can use the calendar, and the Drive, and the Google Docs, and
153
all of that, and they can all complete those tasks pretty seamlessly. They’re told
or shown once or twice, and they’ve got it.
Principal 3: The one big thing and this isn’t a negative work ethic I think
is just there tends to be a lot more handholding if that makes sense. They need
some self-assurance like they’re doing the right thing or doing a good job as
opposed to just having a pure basic expectation. They need a lot more assistance.
Principal 4: Generation Y would have access to information at their
fingertips, certainly using electronic media as a resource in terms of ... oh, I've
seen evidence of blogging and just really more of a, for lack of a better word,
there's less anxiety and fear about some of the things that exist technologically,
and there's been such a learning curve just in terms of getting up and running.
The instructional pedagogy as far as how to incorporate the
technology may not be as developed as you would think at first glance. The
simple use and know-how to operate the equipment, both hardware and
software, I think is less fearful. There's more inherent ... no, not inherent. That's
not the right word, but people are coming to the table with a better
understanding of just how to get started.
Principal 5: I guess what I’m struggling with is I’ve read a lot about a lot
of people that say they are into immediate gratification. I don’t see that. I see
154
these teachers are coming in with energy, a willingness to put in whatever it
takes. I think the ones that I’ve hired are student centered. I’ve hired a lot of
teachers, and I believe most of them 95% are still in it, still energized. This is their
profession versus this is their job. That’s what I see.
Principal 6: They're more comfortable with technology. They know a lot
of the applications that are out there. They are not as hesitant to try them in their
classroom with instruction. The problem is always whether you have that
technology in the building. Many of them come in with student teaching
experience or life experience with certain pieces of tack that we don't necessarily
have in the building. To them, it's probably frustrating that they can't actually
use it with their teaching although, we're getting better with that. Two hundred
iPads were delivered to our school yesterday. The teachers are very excited.
Principal 7: I think they’re into technology, for sure. There’s a higher
comfort level with technology. I’m just guessing now, live at home longer.
13. What implications do these characteristics have on new teacher induction?
Administrator 1: I think just like we want to differentiate instruction for
kids based upon where they come from, their cultural differences, I think that
probably the teacher induction should be adapted to meet their needs so that
they can be the most effective in the classrooms.
155
Administrator 2: Well I think that, again, I think providing time for
mentors and new teachers to work together is critical, and we don't have enough
of it. And I think that's one of the pieces that keeps the program from being...It is
successful. The program is successful. When we started the program in 1998, the
year that I started, of the brand-new hires, people who had just been hired that
year, 25% of them left at the end of the first year, when I was in the program.
That was these data that I had. Actually it was these data prior to the start of the
program, because I had looked into that. And at the end of the first year, I think
we were down to about 18%. And it's gone down to now, it's usually around
10%, and I don't know that we can really get it down much lower than that,
because you talk about people. Not everybody that comes into a profession
belongs in it. And not everybody that comes into a school district belongs in that
district.
Administrator 3: I know that one of our technology sessions specifically
talks about some of the parameters of technology used within the district. For
example, just this year, we have instituted a BYOD policy. Last year, if they went
through teacher orientation, you couldn't connect your own device to the
network. But, they need to understand that “No, you can't just order whatever
technology you want. You have to go through the technology department and it
156
has to be an improved model.” These kids are used to just go into any store or
ordering on line. Then they ask, “I am buying whatever I want. What do you
mean it doesn't work in the district?”
Administrator 4: I don’t know that answer.
Administrator 5: I just think they are open to new ideas. I believe the
teachers that I've met have been enthusiastic and positive and they're very, very
happy to be in our district. They are grateful for the opportunity so therefore
they are very open. There is a lot of enthusiasm with the group that I've seen.
Administrator 6: A lot of us educators make the assumption that because
these people come in knowing all this technology, that they automatically know
how to use it for instructional purposes, and I don’t know if that’s really true.
Really, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. Just because teachers who are coming
out of college these days grew up with technology doesn’t mean they can use it
for teaching. If they can’t, then we, as the leaders, have to train them and help
them.
Principal 1: Absolutely. I think that there’s a reflective part. I think that
the continuous studying, I think that the willingness to look at different
perspective is part of what teacher induction has to frame for them. The fact that
they’re going to be dealing with … sometimes parents that think the same way
157
that they do, very self-centered, they have to be reflective enough to recognize
that when they find themselves in those situations. I think again, the multi-
cultural piece plays in. Here’s another piece too, a lot of them, the ability to
understand foreign language and second language learners isn’t always intuitive
for them.
Principal 2: You know, in my mind, I’m thinking about people leading
teacher induction. I don’t know that if we focused more on technology that the
people teaching the new teachers would have the same level of technology as the
people they’re teaching.
Principal 3: Obviously, we principals notice these trends and these things
through our working with our district office and the person in charge of new
teacher induction. She’s come to a few of our meetings and asked us for feedback
in regards to what are we seeing, what are some trends. We’ve actually
provided some data to her, mostly qualitative data, just to provide her some
things that she could do to adjust her training or provide information during the
year to help support those new teachers.
Principal 4: Sure, I absolutely think there can be. The district is about to
roll out 3000 iPads this year, and we have a great team at the district level. And
what I think I'm excited about is having all the technology, all the opportunities
158
that iPads can present at the fingertips of teachers, and I think more importantly
and more notably at the fingertips of students, but I do worry that the know-how
for teachers to really effectively utilize those things initially is something I'm a
little bit fearful of. So, the district is creating an iPRO Group that's going to be
more technologically savvy teachers, who will be working to provide teachers
with the skills to incorporate this effectively as things that would help foster
student learning.
Principal 5: If we are hiring new people that we are expecting to stay for
the long haul I think there should be a part on setting up a financial retirement.
That would be something certainly that they need information about because
obviously they are not thinking about that. It is something that would be a huge
benefit for young teachers.
Principal 6: I think, again, they're more open. I think when they are
sitting in those content level meetings and they're listening about best practices
in reading, math instruction, and social studies and science, I think that they're
able to make the connections to technology and how technology could enhance
those areas. Whereas teachers that may be new, but they're second career
teachers don't necessarily have those connections made as easily.
159
Principal 7: I think it’s probably, I would guess, a shock to some of the
kids just how much work it is to be a first year teacher. It’s such a huge
commitment, and they really have to take good care of themselves. It’s huge,
that first year. There’s so much levels to it that they can’t even really prepare for.
So let’s keep it simple for quite a while. There’s so much to learn although the
kids from Illinois at certain schools like Illinois State, they’re out in the field
much longer, and they do get it to a certain extent, but there’s nothing like when
you finally get that first job, the reality of it.
14. Do you feel as if new teachers are ready to meet the district's expectations
for the use of technology in their classrooms when they are first hired?
Administrator 1: No, I don’t think they are. I think just bringing skills
with the use of technology isn’t enough. I think you have to know how children
are going to use that and how it’s going to accomplish the instructional
educational goals and standards that you have in the classroom, and I think that
that has to be learned. Even though they come with a lot of strong technology
skills, those instructional … the transfer of instructional practices I think is
something they still need help with.
Administrator 2: Yes. With the exception of people who are older that
come in. You know, if we get somebody that's in their 40s, or their 50s, they may
160
have the same issues that other teachers in the district do. We're on a learning
curve here. But people who are coming in very young, I mean, there are two
things in their favor. Number one, they're hardwired. They've lived and breathed
it. And the other thing is they are, in general, are more open to these things.
They're less intimidated by it. And I think they're more willing to experiment,
within reason.
Administrator 3: I think they're more open to applying it, but I wouldn't
say they're all savvy enough to make the link to instruction so much that you
were thinking.
Administrator 4: Not all of them certainly. I think they have some similar
experiences maybe but, of course, they have to learn the specifics.
Administrator 5: I would say that they are as long as they understand
what resources are available. I see new teachers bring a lot of great uses of
technology to their classroom even without any direct support. They just bring
new ideas and they try new things. So, I would say overall from what I've seen
the teachers seem prepared to use technology in a meaningful way generally
speaking.
Administrator 6: I see that the younger teachers, they do request staff
development quite often. When we deploy the equipment and we’ll hear from
161
them quite often, “Exactly how do you want me to use this?” Then I would refer
them to our technology coordinator who does the staff development. They will
request that often. I see that maybe they’re not so ready as we might think.
Principal 1: I think so. What I’ve seen in the new batch of teachers, I think
I have for this year, they’ve gone in swimmingly. As a matter of fact, I was
speaking with someone today. We were talking about Google Docs and we have
a couple of kids that are very good with that but she says that she’s been working
with a second year teacher whom she mentored. He gives her a five minute, 10
minute mini-lesson on a regular basis and she’s progressing that way. The
veterans are learning from the new kids in terms of technology. That is an
absolute yes.
Principal 2: You know, it’s part of our interviewing at our school because
we do have a lot of technology available to us, and we don’t want it to be stand-
alone equipment, so the purpose of our technology is to be able to enhance what
we’re already doing, and with all the expectations of common core, they’ve got
to find ways to use the technology. They’re teaching through the technology,
and then the students pick up the technology skills along the way.
My new teachers aren’t afraid to learn from their students either. If
there’s something they don’t know how to do, they’ll put some of their tech
162
savvy students on it in the building who will troubleshoot and figure out the best
way to do something, and then the teachers learn from them. These are my
young teachers too learning from some of their students even.
Principal 3: I will speak for myself and I’ll say the ones that I have hired
certainly have that background or that strength or we’ve seen an ability to be
utilize technology in their classrooms effectively. I guess that it is one of the
questions that we ask and if we don’t get the answer that we’re looking for, it
could be one of those things that may deter a candidate over someone else that
may have a little more experience or use of technology as a way to engage
students and enhance their classroom experience.
Principal 4: No. I haven't seen that yet, but I think part of that too is,
when you're a new teacher, kind of every day is, I don't want to say a struggle to
survive, but I mean you're focused on so many different things and you're
placing so much time and attention on so many different other things.
Principal 5: Yes. I’m going to put a little caveat in there that I don’t think
the expectations are very high in our district for technology.
Principal 6: Yes. I think so.
Principal 7: Yes. I’ve been really fortunate with the new teachers that I
have hired, but I have a range. I’m trying to think the past couple of years. I
163
have a couple that are brand new and have just taken to it based on the student
teaching experience they’ve had, and they just have it. Then I have had others
who are probably in their 40s that have been doing it awhile, and so I’ve been
very lucky, just a very diverse group of people.
15. What does your district do to prepare new teachers for mastering the
functionality of the technology in their classrooms?
Administrator 1: I’m not really sure. But, we do have a staff member
who talks about how to use the computer, how to get into the files, I think the e-
mail capabilities and things like that, not adding software.
Administrator 2: Basically, it's handled, if they have problems with
equipment. We do not do a workshop on how to use an Elmo or a Smartboard. I
think teachers help a lot with that. I think mentors help a lot, especially with the
technology that's common in the classrooms. I think the mentors are a key piece.
Administrator 3: We usually don't like to just do a hardware use
workshop at the new teacher induction meetings. One of the sessions at the
schools during that week is someone in your school teaches you how to access
your e-mail, how to work your phone system, those kind of hardware, hard line
type things.
Administrator 4: No response to this question.
164
Administrator 5: I would say not a lot. I think what we do is we just hope
that they have a cooperating teacher that helps them, and that they rely on their
in-school resources. I think the assumption is that they come in knowing how to
work the basic functions of the hardware and they typically do, in fact, they do to
a fault sometimes where they go beyond our restrictive environment. They will
assume it's okay to download software, assume it's okay to access web sites that
might be blocked. They don't seem to have a difficult time mastering the
hardware.
Administrator 6: We’ve made sure each one of the technicians in our
department, there’s seven of them now, that they’ve had the latest greatest
equipment all the time. They’re engineers, they know technology … but they
looked at the iPad and they were like, “Not exactly sure how we’re going to use
this.” So they need to think like a teacher. Just because someone’s coming from
college into a school district does not automatically mean they know how to use
that technology.
Principal 1: We’ve got a library media center director whose role is
primarily not only to run the library but to support technology. There are a
couple of coordinators within the district that plant themselves in the different
schools and have office hours so to speak for precisely that functionality.
165
Principal 2: We’re really fortunate in our district that we have a help desk
available to us, and we have a troubleshooter who comes to our building once a
week. Oftentimes, they don’t like us to do too much hardware troubleshooting
on our own because things are supposed to be done a certain way according to
district guidelines, so that can actually be a frustration for some.
Principal 3: Not enough. I think that the teachers again are provided a
laptop and they’re given the basics on how to utilize that but as far as utilizing
laptops in the classroom or whatnot, a lot of that’s done at site based. A lot of
that’s done with our LRC directors or experts that we have on staff that can help
them utilize technology appropriately within our building. It kind of varies from
building to building. It’s very interesting but I think the district can provide more
information to help our new teachers utilize the technology effectively in their
classrooms beyond their basic knowledge.
Principal 4: No response to this question.
Principal 5: Yeah I think that’s what the mentor is for. They need to
know how to take attendance. If they are going to be sick tell them how to use
the AESOP system, or how to log in to the website. We need to teach them how
to log in to the intranet and how to do direct deposits.
166
Principal 6: Every classroom in our district has a projector and an ELMO,
so that's basic. That is one of the things that they do receive in the induction
piece. Their mentor also works through how to use those tools in the classroom.
We also have two instructional technology people in the district who offer
workshops and send out little newsletters that talk about Tip of the Week, and
how to use this tool in this area. They're able to get that support as well.
Principal 7: We have an LRC, a learning resource center person who’s
very high tech, and she is definitely a go to person if something is not working in
the classroom, and she’s very on top of things as far as filling out the forms if
something is not working, whether it’s a printer or a bulb in an ELMO, or the
projectors, the laptops. Then the Technology Department is just a phone call
away, and they are great about coming over or doing something remotely for
your computer.
16. What does your district do to prepare new teachers for mastering the use of
technology for instruction in their classrooms?
Administrator 1: I think they do enough. I think it’s just one component
of a whole multitude of things that teachers need to consider and be given
training in, in order to be effective in the classroom, so I think it’s sufficient. Like
I said, I think more training in the midst of their teaching is probably better than
167
the induction process. It should be embedded in their actual teaching practices
versus before the school year starts.
Administrator 2: Well, like I said, we have a session with our technology
coordinator at the beginning, during orientation. And then she follows up with
different initiatives. Also we have a math facilitator who works with teachers in
helping them utilize math technology, math programs, software types of things
for teachers. The literacy people also have stuff that they do. And the building
principals do too. I mean, everybody here is trying as hard as they can to make
the best use of technology to improve student learning. So I see the new teacher
induction program as part of a system, not a stand-alone.
Administrator 3: That's just through ongoing professional development,
usually elective on their part. We do have their one hour session at the beginning
of the year.
Administrator 4: You know, I’m not certain of that answer. For instance,
every teacher has a laptop that’s stocked with the projector and the ELMO. And
many of them have Smartboards, but I honestly don’t know how they’re taught
to use those.
Administrator 5: Rather than workshops that are kind of where we bring
the whole group together and learn something, we provide job embedded, “just
168
in time” learning for teachers who sort of seek it out. We don't require it. We
don't schedule workshops, but we hope to make new teachers feel comfortable
and welcome to ask questions and to get some just in time support for their
questions and their needs.
Administrator 6: As I said the technicians, I will ask them to spend some
time with the tech coordinator or somebody else. Find out what apps they’re
using.
Principal 1: We’ve had an infusion of iPads and both the staff
development and the discussion of apps and applicability for instructional
purposes I think has slowed.
Principal 2: We don’t do enough in our district. I don’t think we have a
big enough technology team to come out and actually help our teachers
instructionally. We’ve added a person who started I think right at the end of the
school year. I don’t know what her start date is, but she is doing more with
integration with technology into instructional settings. She is providing a lot of
resources to us but not direct support, direct instruction. There’s a web site we
can go to and watch videos and learn more about what’s available to us or what
people are doing in other buildings that have been effective, but you really have
to be self-driven to find that.
169
Principal 3: Are there opportunities throughout the school year for
professional development in that area? The district does offer that but obviously
that’s time out of the classroom or it’s time away from kids and so that definitely
has a negative impact but there are opportunities for staff to get that professional
development during the year especially our new teachers. Our tech department
is very good and they provide very, very good professional development
opportunities. It’s just a matter of finding the ones that fit what the staff needs.
Principal 4: No response to this question.
Principal 5: They spend more time on that (functionality) than on
instructional purposes for technology.
Principal 6: We also have a tech person assigned to our building, who
comes through regularly to help problem-solve if there are any issues. Our
resource center teacher, which is another name for librarian, is extremely tech
savvy. She actually is totally our building tech leader. She's the number one go-to
person. If she can't figure it out, teachers go to the help desk.
Principal 7: In addition to that hardware piece, we now have two people
who are planning training, lunch and learns, and webinars for our i-Pad rollout,
so it’s better. It’s just that we have such a huge district, it seems like it’s never
enough, but they’re trying.
170
17. Does your district do enough to assist new teachers in the area of
educational technology (functionality or instruction)? Please explain.
Administrator 1: I think so. I think it’s just one component of a whole
multitude of things that teachers need to consider and be given training in, in
order to be effective in the classroom, so I think it’s sufficient, and like I said, I
think more training in the midst of their teaching is probably better than during
the induction process. Embedded in their actual teaching practices versus before
the school year starts I think is probably more effective.
Administrator 2: You know, I can't say it on authority. I think the new
teacher induction program does. I don't know how the new teachers would
perceive it overall. I do surveys all the time, and I always ask them, "What
would you have liked more of? What would you have liked less of?" Sometimes
I'll even send them a survey asking, "Here are some possible things we're
thinking about including in next year's orientation. Which ones do you think are
worth doing? Which ones do you think not so much?" The only one I've had is
the instructional technology, which we added two years ago.
Administrator 3: No. I don't think we do enough to assist new teachers in
any area. I think we are very thin on instructional support.
Administrator 4: In my opinion? Oh boy. Yes, I’d say yes.
171
Administrator 5: In my opinion, the district could do better by having
more instructional technology support. It's very difficult for one person in the
role, along with a new teacher induction facilitator, to do it. It's very difficult to
be able to develop relationships and be connected with so many teachers.
Administrator 6: No response to this question.
Principal 1: My sense is yes. There’s a service center that is open for calls.
We can e-mail them. There’s a tech rep that is assigned to our building who is
fairly responsive. There’s a tech department that is well staffed and fully
responsive as well. The library media center person is well-adept in the systems
that we use.
Principal 2: No, but we’re heading that way. We’re starting a new …
rather than being a tech committee like we’ve had in the past, which consulted
and made more decisions regarding what technology should we have available
to us, this group is going to be looking more at the instructional component, so
we’ve been charged with looking for staff members in our building who are
those tech savvy people who can come in and now talk more about integration,
and training other people, and getting other people more on board and making
instructional decisions on behalf of the district but have representation from all
the buildings.
172
Principal 3: The thing is there’s still a lot of unknowns. Again, you talked
about laptops and labs that we have but they’re certainly not always
implementation of iPads. A lot of these would just kind of be thrown at them and
it will be trial and error. There will be basic, again basic training given, some of it
site based, some of it at district level, and then there’ll be obviously opportunities
throughout the year for teachers to attend trainings in specific apps to their
content area that can help enhance their classroom but again, how many teachers
can go? Will the new teachers be able to get involved in this and how much time
will they be away from the classroom to get that?
Principal 4: No response to this question.
Principal 5: I would say they do enough because then again they do offer
things throughout the first two years. Looking at the audience they are just being
bombarded with a lot of new stuff. I guess it’s probably not the best time to start
to talk about how to use this instruction. Probably it’s more essentially at that
time to learn how to use email and how our systems work and things like that.
Principal 6: I think so. I think we're just starting to really dig in to
instructional technology. I think they're laying the foundation for that. I'm sure
they'll only grow with time.
173
Principal 7: I think they try to. I do think it’s not enough manpower, but
I think they’re capable, and they’re very willing to help. It’s just that they’re
spread very thin.
18. Is there anything you would add to the technology component of the new
teacher induction process?
Administrator 1: I really think that excellent teaching can be done with a
chalkboard and a piece of chalk. I think that it’s done at a higher level, and it can
be more diversified with technology, and so I would like teachers to keep the
components of quality teaching foremost in their mind and then figure out how
technology can make that even better.
Administrator 2: I would like to add more time for it.
Administrator 3: I would. I believe we need more instructional support in
the district, instructional coaches, instructional support for teachers. We don't
have all the middle people that should be our instructional coaches and our
classroom support that can go out and reinforce, go out and support.
They may come to a PD here for one day, but then they go back to their
building. I'd love to have instructional support that a teacher could say, "Hey, I'm
so glad you had this. I learned this here. Give me a week, I want to go back, I
174
want to practice, I want to apply it. Then, could somebody come out and watch
me and coach me?” That's what we need.
Administrator 4: I think it will have to be done eventually that there will
have to be more on iPads. We’re gaining more and more iPads in the district, but
I don’t know. I don’t think that’s been a deficit up until this point.
Administrator 5: I think I would really like to leverage the interest in
social media with the new teachers, and I'd like for them to develop a personal
learning network and utilize some social media tools. So say if we used Edmodo
for discussion groups to help the teachers connect with one another throughout
the year online. I would help them connect with each other using Twitter. I think
because we're such a big district it's hard to say that I would add more time, but I
would like to facilitate a learning community using online tools and then also I
guess I would like to do some more face-to-face with them not so much as a
workshop to teach them anything specific but just to kind of build relationships
with them so they understand how I can support them, and I think that's
important for them to kind of see me more than once and not just in that first
couple of weeks before school because they're being talked to from everybody in
the district. That's so overwhelming. I just want to kind of connect with them
after they've been in the building for a couple of months and now they might be
175
ready to sort of try something new or get to know some new tools or something
like that.
Administrator 6: No response to this question.
Principal 1: Interestingly, we went away from smart boards in this
district. I always thought that one initiative that I started in a prior school
because we had smart boards in every classroom was connecting via the smart
board to other classrooms. It can be done with other technology but I think that
the wider communication to the world, the video conferencing, the alignment
with not only the learning of language but the learning of culture, the learning of
different systems and whatnot in other classrooms, in other states, in other
countries, I think is underutilized. I think that’s a fabulous technology that we
just don’t use. We don’t even connect with other classrooms in the district.
Principal 2: You know, what would probably be good for the new
training days would be to actually spend time immersed in the available
technology to explore and ask questions of the people who have more of the
answers. I think that that would be really helpful, so if you had new hires in an
area where they were able to use the iPads, have access to interactive
whiteboards, get into our student information system, which has so much
available to us that none of us are using it to its full capacity, have access to the
176
web programming that we use here to maybe do basic building of their web
pages, all of that, and then have people on deck to answer their questions
immediately I think would probably be really exciting and helpful.
Principal 3: We’re starting to see more and more teachers come in with,
especially with tablets and iPods and iPads and things like that that they’re
utilizing. They have experience using that over some people in the building who
have been here 15 to 20, 30 years that haven’t had that experience so it varies at
different levels. They come in with some experience using that technology but
maybe not at an educational level, how to utilize it in their classroom effectively
so I think there should be more use or more professional development provided
in those areas for our new teachers.
Principal 4: Yeah. I think that everybody should do more. I think that
until we get to a point where we're ... I mean, effective professional development,
which is really what we're talking about when we're talking about new teacher
induction, it's PD, and so, yes, we should be doing more. But I think one of the
things that we have to be very, very mindful of is how much are we going to put
on the plates of teachers. We're all working on the Common Core State
Standards. We're all working on integrating the Danielson Framework, and
177
there's just so much on teachers' plates, and I think it's hard to ... well, and why
does technology need to be tertiary in terms of level of importance?
Principal 5: I would look more at the use of technology in the classroom.
Specifically like with iPads and other things like that. Our district’s just going to
be rolling out lots of iPads into the schools. We are going to be giving 150 in next
few weeks and that’s across the district. Certainly that’s something that the
district mentor program could have something related to because now that will
be a consistent piece of our education for years to come.
Principal 6: I guess now that every school is receiving a set of iPads that
might be something that should be added. Just so that teachers, when they are
walking in the door, they know some simple applications they could use with the
students. Then know that they have resources to go to if they want to go beyond
just kind of the basics. Using the iPads as an instructional tool, not as a game
player is what they need to know.
Principal 7: No. I’m really excited that we received six carts of iPads just
at the end of last week.
19. Is there anything else that you would like to add to this discussion?
Administrator 1: No response to this question.
178
Administrator 2: I’d just like to say, I think the big deal that's missing is
time. Maybe another thing would be, we have mentor selection criteria, and I
work with leadership every year to go over those and make sure they're clear.
For the most part, I think principals follow those guidelines, and use them. But I
think sometimes, because in our district principals select the mentors. That's
something I've not been able to get away from. In best practice research, it talks
about a pool of mentors that are already trained, and matching mentors to the
new teachers as they get hired. That's not what happens. What happens is, as
people get hired, the mentor is just picked by the school principal. And I train all
of the mentors. The mentors go through two days of foundational training, and
then I have follow-ups for the mentors.
Administrator 3: No response to this question.
Administrator 4: No response to this question.
Administrator 5: The other thing that I think is important is we have a
cooperative agreement with ISU so we have a group of student teachers that
work in our district. I meet with them a couple of times for half day times
together where we work on some things, and those teachers who are new to our
district that were part of the ISU cohort I feel like they have a leg up a little bit
because I've been able to do some fun stuff with them and work with some new
179
tools and then talk with them about some of the experiences they've had in the
classroom. I make a connection with them and we build a relationship so I think
those teachers that are part of that ISU student teaching group that we ultimately
end up hiring feel much more comfortable with me. I think they feel much more
comfortable with the use of technology because they've had that time to explore
those kinds of tools.
Administrator 6: No response to this question.
Principal 1: No response to this question.
Principal 2: No response to this question.
Principal 3: No response to this question.
Principal 4: No response to this question.
Principal 5: I guess the only thing kind of along the same vein is my
understanding now of our schools that use PBIS as a school and classroom
management system. My understanding is now the last few schools are all on
board with that as well. That would be another thing that would make sense
because now it doesn’t matter where you are being hired; PBIS is going to be a
part of your life. That that would be another piece that should have a focus for
new teachers.
Principal 6: No response to this question.
180
Principal 7: No response to this question.
Data Collection Summary from the Semi-Structured Interviews
To summarize the six district-level administrators’ and seven principals’
interview responses, Tables 10 and 11 were created. While the following tables
do not represent every comment made during the semi-structured interviews,
the information presented serves as a representative sample of those data
displayed previously in this chapter related to the areas of new teacher
induction, Generation Y teachers, and instructional technology professional
development for new teachers.
Table 10
Summary of Responses from District-level Administrators to Interview Questions
Admin 1 Admin 2 Admin 3 Admin 4 Admin 5 Admin 6
Question 1 –
Tech skills in
interview
No. Looks for
teaching
attitude and
mentality, not
skills
Does not
participate in
interviewing.
No. Looks for
tchg. skills,
methods,
differentiation
No. These
can be taught
after hiring.
No. Looks
for strong
instructional
practices.
Does not
participate in
interviewing.
Question
2 – Delivery of
NTI
Differentiated
for new Ts.
Mentors
5-day job-
differentiated
orientation.
Mentors.
Curric.
sessions; tech
intro
5-day
program;
Nuts/bolts;
Curric.;
cultural
Intro to IEP
program on
computer;
Progress
monitoring
Extensive
mentoring
program
Not familiar
with the NTI
program
Question
3 - Planning of
NTI
Small part;
NTI
facilitator’s
role
Plans all of it. Works with
NTI facilitator
to plan
Plans for new
student serv.
staff only.
No role in
planning
No role in
planning
181
Question
4 – Conducting
NTI
Provides
into; speaks
on the
history,
expectations
Conducts all
NT
workshops.
Department
conducts a
full day of
workshops
Conducts
portion
related to her
department
One hour to
give tech
overview
Not
involved in
conducting
NTI
Question
5 – In other
districts
No
Experiences
No
Experiences
Delivered
staff
development
in curr.
Some, but
very minimal
No
Experiences
No
Experiences
Question
6 – Are you
pleased with
NTI
Yes, it has
been
successful.
Thorough
process
Yes, for the
most part,
with some
opportunities
for
improvement
Yes, and it is
evolving
every year
Yes. It
teaches the
expectations
of the district
Yes. The
mentoring is
extremely
important
No opinion
on this topic
Question
7 – If no, any
changes
No response No response No response No response More than
an hour of
technology
training
No response
Question
8 – Basic areas
of
concentration
of NTI
No response Curriculum,
Danielson,
Using data,
reflection,
familiar with
tech.
Tech piece,
nuts/bolts of
district,
ins/benefits,
union, curr
needs,
luncheon, sp.
ed., bilingual,
mentoring
Classroom
management,
cultural
competency,
differentiated
instruction
Curriculum
classroom
manage.
No response
Question
9 – Eliminate
anything
Yes, 5 days is
a lot,
managerial
things,
No Yes, cut back
from the 5
days
No No No response
Question
10 – Anything
to be increased
Classroom
manage,
instruct.
strategies
assessment,
More time
with mentors
No No response Greater
connection
with
technology
tools
No response
Question
11 – Extend
past beginning
of school
No response Yes it goes on
all year, a
second year
is optional
The 5 days are
required
Yes. 10 after
school
meetings
during year
Yes, it is a
full year
No response
Question
12 –
Characteristics
of Gen Y
Free spirits,
not as loyal,
more globally
& culturally
sensitive,
more socially
minded
Assertive
and
enthusiastic,
passionate
Tech-savvy,
naïve, a bit
short-sighted
Entitled, high
expectations
of others,
Tech-savvy
Risk-takers,
confident,
innovative
comfortable
with
technology,
introverted
Question
13 –
Implications
on NTI
More
differentiated
PD for them
More mentor
time,
More on the
parameters of
using
technology in
the district
No response They have a
lot of
enthusiasm,
they are
open
Instructional
technology
Question
14 – Ready to
No. Bringing
tech skills is
Yes, the
younger
They are more
open to tech
Not all of
them
Yes, they
bring a lot
No. The
younger
182
use technology
at first
not enough,
not
transferring
to instruction
teachers are
less
intimidated
by the
technology
but not savvy
enough to use
it to teach
of great uses
of
technology
to the
classrooms
teacher
request more
PD
Question
15 – What does
district do re:
functionality
Not sure, but
we have a
staff member
for this
Yes, it is
handled for
them
We don’t like
to do a
hardware
wkshp at NTI,
but there a
little of that
No response Not a lot,
we hope
that the
mentor can
assist
Yes, makes
sure that
there are
technicians
to assist new
teachers
Question
16 – What does
district do re:
instruction
They do
enough.
Training
should be
embedded all
year long
There is one
session at
NTI, others
help too,
One hour
session to
start, also
done through
ongoing PD
We have the
hardware but
not sure if
they are
taught to use
it
It is job
embedded,
not through
workshops
Technicians
will spend
some time
with teachers
Question
17 – Does the
district do
enough
I think so, It
is just one
component of
their training
I think the
NTI program
does enough
No we do not.
We are thin
on
instructional
support
Yes No, the
district
could do
better. Not
enough staff
for training
and support
No response
Question
18 – Anything
to add to the
tech
component of
NTI
Would rather
focus on good
teaching
Add more
time for
technology in
NTI
Need more
instructional
support for
teachers
maybe with
coaches
More will
have to be
done with
tech
eventually
due to
increase in
iPads
Need more
social media
with new
teachers
No response
Question
19 – Anything
else to add to
discussion
No response Need more
time, need a
pool of
mentors
which are not
necessarily
selected by
principals
No response No response Continue
the
relationship
with one of
the state
universities
as it appears
to be
effective
No response
The Rubric of Essential Technology Conditions (RETC), which was
created by the State of Nebraska, was used to develop the technology-related
semi-structured administrator questions (questions 1, 14-18).
The RETC provides a framework identifying a set of essential conditions
and provides corresponding indicators of progress in meeting those
183
conditions. It supports the planning process by allowing schools to
conduct a systematic assessment of their progress in integrating
technology against a standard established by a statewide group of
educational technology leaders. (Steckelberg, et al, 2008, p. 82)
When asked about the hiring of new teachers (question 1) four of the six
district-level administrators (67%) do not ask questions related to technology
skills during the interview process (the other two do not interview new teachers).
When asked if the new teachers are ready to use technology at the start of their
careers four of the six administrators (67%) said “No” the teachers are not ready
(question 14). When asked questions related to preparing new teachers for the
functionality and instructional uses of technology, the district-level
administrators were generally aware that there are district employees who
handle the PD for these two areas. In addition, the majority of these
administrators stated that the district does enough to support new teachers with
technology at the start of their careers. Finally, half of the administrators stated
that more staff is needed to help support teachers with technology. In
examination of the district-level administrators’ answers to the technology
related questions, one can summarize that this school district generally is in the
“Significant Progress” stage of the Technology Administration and Support stage
184
of the RETC because this district employs one full-time instructional specialist
without a staff to support her.
The district is in the “Beginning” stage in the Leadership area of the
Educator Competencies and Professional Development portion of the RETC
because, based on their interview responses, they display a limited awareness of
the benefits of technology in instruction (see Appendix D for the complete RETC
document).
The nine Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher
Induction Programs (2008) were used to assess the new teacher induction program
in use by the school district being studied in this research project. These
standards, developed by the Illinois State Teacher Certification Board in
December, 2008, were designed to help educational leaders reflect on the best
practices and effective structures necessary to design and deliver a high quality,
effective new teacher induction program.
Interview questions 2 through 11 were used to determine the
administrators’ thoughts and understanding of the new teacher induction (NTI)
process in their district. In summary, four of the six district-level administrators
demonstrated a basic understanding of the process, one administrator possessed
a very strong understanding of the process, and one administrator possessed no
185
knowledge of the process. When asked questions related to the planning and
conducting of the NTI process, five of the six administrators stated that they had
either minimal or no involvement in the process, while one person stated that she
does all of the planning and facilitating for the new teachers. Finally, a couple of
the administrators would like to see the NTI process cut back from the five days,
but generally, five of the six administrators were pleased with the NTI process,
while one administrator had no opinion.
Numerous resources were used to define Generation Y for the purposes of
this research study and to develop the interview questions. When asked for the
characteristics of Generation Y, the most common answers among the
administrators were that they are technologically adept and they embrace
technology, and they appear to be self-centered and somewhat naïve.
Interestingly, four of the six district-level administrators (67%) answered in the
negative when asked if the new teachers are ready to use technology in their
classrooms when they are first hired (question 14). This appears to contradict
their answer to their knowledge of the characteristics of Generation Y teachers. If
the district-level administrators are aware that their new, technology savvy
teachers are not ready to incorporate instructional technology into their teaching,
then is enough professional development being provided in this area?
186
Additionally, the administrators were asked if these characteristics had
implications on the NTI process. Although they did not have much to say in this
regard, there was some consensus on the need to provide more technology PD
for new teachers.
Table 11
Summary of Responses from Principals to Interview Questions
Principal 1 Principal 2 Principal 3 Principal 4 Principal 5 Principal6 Principal 7
Question 1
– Tech
skills in
interview
Yes.
Software
and
hardware
Yes.
Integrate
with
lessons
Yes.
Comfort
level
Yes.
Extend
beyond
simple
knowledge
No.
Assumes
they know
tech.
Yes. Asks
how it
enhances
teaching
Yes. Asks
basic areas
of tech use
Question
2 - Delivery
of NTI
Week-long
orient.;
Mentors;
2nd year
option
5-days;
Mentors;
Curriculum
Basic tech
training
Not
familiar
with NTI.
Some
summer
training
Mentor
program
Week of
training;
Mentors;
Work in
schools
Week-long
training;
Additional
during
year;
Mentors
Intensive
week
before
school;
workshops
Question
3 - Planning
of NTI
Selects
mentors
Plans for 3
hour
initiation in
the school
Plans for
half-day
initiation in
the school
New to
district.
Did not
plan.
Select
mentors
Plans for
afternoon
initiation in
the school
Plans for
initiation in
the school
Question
4 –
Conducting
NTI
Orientation
to school
None;
Attends
luncheon
None None Orientation
to school;
Attends
luncheon
Orientation
to school
Orientation
to school
Question
5 – In other
districts
Some
involveme
nt but less
than this
district
Some but
on a
smaller
scale
Similar
experiences
to this
district
Similar
experiences
to this
district
Similar
experiences
to this
district
Not a
principal in
previous
district
No
Experience
s
Question
6 – Are you
pleased
with NTI
Yes. It is
supportive
Yes.
Provides
Intensive
training
Yes. It
covers all
areas
Yes.
Provides
an
interesting
experience
Yes. Ts
come with
good
understand
ing to start
Yes. They
do a great
job
Yes. Very
pleased.
Question
7 – If no,
any changes
No
response
No
response
No
response
No
response
No
response
No
response
No
response
Question
8 – Basic
areas of
concentratio
Class
manage,
Curric,,
ELL,
Curric,
technology,
benefits,
safety
Union
contract,
Curr and
instr.,
New to
district.
Not
familiar yet
Reading,
student
data,
taking
Dist
expectation
,history,
reading
Intro to key
people,
website,
sub system,
187
n of NTI financial
literacy,
union
contract
training,
sp. ed., RtI
business
issues, bus
tour
attendance,
class
manageme
nt, parent
communic
and math,
CCSS, sp.
ed.,
taking
attendance,
culture,
math,
English,
CCSS
behavior
manage
Question
9 –
Eliminate
anything
CCSS No No No
response
No Some of the
business
pieces
No
Question
10 –
Anything to
be increased
Cross-curr
instruction
No – but
ask the
new
teachers
this quest.
Technology No
response
No Special ed
process,
RtI, ELL
Technology
Question
11 – Extend
past
beginning
of school
Yes, it goes
through
the entire
year,
monthly
meetings
Yes, after
school
training
Yes, it goes
all year to
meet with
mentors
No
response
Yes, it goes
on all year
They have
paperwork,
lessons to
turn in,
reflection
logs all
year
Yes,
mentor
works all
year with
new
teacher
Question
12 –
Characterist
ics of Gen Y
Passionate,
Technologi
cally adept,
see
different
perspective
s, open to
diversity,
idealistic,
confident
Student
focused,
embrace
technology,
fast
learners,
Need
hand-
holding,
need
assistance
Understan
d electronic
media, no
fear of
technology
Need
immediate
gratificatio
n, lots of
energy,
student-
centered,
Comfortabl
e with
technology,
High
comfort
level with
technology
Question
13 –
Implication
s on NTI
More PD
on the
multi-
cultural
piece, ELL
More on
technology
PD
Adjust the
NTI based
on
principal
feedback
More on
technology
PD
More on
Financial
security
More on
technology
PD
More to
help with
the shock
of the first
year of
teaching
Question
14 – Ready
to use
technology
at first
Yes, I think
so.
Yes, it is
part of the
interview.
They are
not afraid
of
technology
Yes. No, I have
not seen
that yet
Yes Yes, I think
so
Yes, they
are taking
right to it
188
Question
15 – What
does district
do re:
functionalit
y
LRC
director to
help with
this
Help desk
is available
Not
enough, Ts
only given
the basics,
LRC
directors
help
No
response
Yes, that is
what the
mentor is
for
There are
two
technology
people in
the district
who offer
workshops
LRC
director
helps with
this, tech
dept is a
call away
Question
16 – What
does district
do re:
instruction
Infusion of
iPads but
PD has
slowed
down
We do not
do enough,
teachers
need to be
self-driven
Yes, PD is
offered, but
it takes
time away
from
classroom,
tech dept is
good, but
hard to
find PD
that fits
No
response
More time
is spent on
functionalit
y than on
instruction
There is a
tech
person,
LRC
teacher
does more
There are
two people
to assist
with this
but that’s
not enough
staff for
this
Question
17 – Does
the district
do enough
Yes, there
is a service
center for
calls, and a
LRC
person at
our school
No, but we
are headed
in the right
direction
with a new
tech
committee
No, not
enough for
implement
ation of
laptops
No
response
Yes, they
offer things
during first
two years
Yes, we are
just
starting to
dig into
technology
No, they
try but
there is not
enough
manpower
Question
18 –
Anything to
add to the
tech
component
of NTI
More use
of Smart
boards and
connecting
to other
classrooms
More time
for teachers
to be
immersed
in available
technology
More PD
needed for
use of
technology
More PD
needed for
use of
technology
Look more
at the use
of
technology
in the
classrooms
More PD
for using
the new
iPads
No.
Excited to
be
receiving
new iPads
Question
19 –
Anything
else to add
to
discussion
No
response
No
response
No
response
No
response
No
response
Need more
training on
the use of
PBIS for all
schools
No
response
When asked about the hiring of new teachers (question 1) six of the seven
principals (86%) do ask questions related to technology skills during the
interview process. This is contrary to the answers provided by the district-level
administrators on this same question. When asked if the new teachers are ready
to use technology at the start of their careers six of the seven principals (86%)
189
said “Yes” the teachers are ready (question 14). When asked questions related to
preparing new teachers for the functionality and instructional uses of
technology, half of the principals stated that the Library Resource Center teacher
provides the PD for new teachers while the other half stated that there are
district-level employees who do this (one principal is new to the district and did
not know the answers to these questions). Finally, three of the seven principals
believed that the district does enough to assist new teachers with technology
while the other three of the seven believe that the district does not do enough
(the new principal abstained from answering this question). Six of the seven
principals stated that some form of PD is still needed for new teachers in regard
to the use of smart boards, iPads, etc. in the classrooms.
In examination of the principals’ answers to the technology related
questions, one can summarize that, consistent with the district-level
administrators, the district generally falls in the “Significant Progress” stage of
the Technology Administration and Support stage of the RETC. This summation
is based on the full time instructional technology specialist position as well as
some schools having technology adept LRC teachers. Based on the principals’
responses regarding professional development in technology, the district would
fall in the “Beginning” stage of the Educator Competencies and Professional
190
Development portion of the RETC. This summation is based on these interview
data which indicate that the large majority of principals believe that the new
teachers need more PD. This also is consistent with the district-level
administrators’ answers regarding technology professional development (see
Appendix D for the complete RETC document.)
Interview questions 2 through 11 were used to determine the
administrators’ thoughts and understanding of the new teacher induction (NTI)
process in their district. In summary, six of the seven principals demonstrated a
basic understanding of the process while one possessed no knowledge of the
process. When asked questions related to the planning and conducting of the
NTI process, two of the seven principals referred to their choosing mentors as
their role in planning, four principals referred to providing some in-school
initiation, and one was new to the district this year. In terms of conducting NTI,
the principals were fairly consistent in either providing an orientation to the
school or doing nothing. Finally, all seven of the principals were pleased with
the NTI process, and a couple of them would like to see more technology added
to the process.
When asked for the characteristics of Generation Y, the most common
answers among the principals were that they are comfortable and adept with
191
technology, and that they embrace it without fear. Additionally, the principals
were asked if these characteristics had implications on the NTI process. Four of
the seven (57%) stated that the district should provide more PD on technology
use in the classroom.
Artifact Collection
At the same time as the semi-structured interviews were taking place,
artifacts related to the district’s new teacher induction program were being
collected and reviewed. The following is a list of the artifacts along with some
related information about each item:
1. New teacher induction handbook: Each new teacher received a 25 page
handbook titled “Welcome to School District XX’s New Teacher Orientation.”
The dates for this orientation were listed as August 6-13, 2013, and the cover
page stated, “It is our hope that our mentor/induction program will provide
meaningful information to help you continue on your learning journey as an
education professional.” Page 2 of this handbook stated the district mission, the
strategic goal map, and the district’s core values. The next six pages detailed the
agendas for each of the five days of the new teacher induction meetings. The
week started with introductions and speeches by certain district-level
administrators including the superintendent and members of his cabinet.
192
On the first day there also was a welcoming luncheon for the new
teachers, administrators, mentors, and school board members. In addition, the
new teachers were divided into job-alike groups (e.g., K-2 teachers, special
education teachers, middle school teachers, school psychologists, etc.) for
differentiated break-out workshops during the week. The rest of the daily
agendas were broken into workshops related to the literacy and mathematics
curricula, diversity, classroom management, RtI, cultural competency, and the
“nuts and bolts” of working in the district. There also was a one hour workshop
on instructional technology. Finally, the new teachers were given tours of
demonstration classrooms that were set-up purposefully as effective models, and
time was allocated to work with mentors and principals.
The next portion of the new teacher induction handbook was dedicated to
detailing the mentor selection process. There was a rubric for mentor selection, a
list of the mentor selection criteria, and a mentor job description. The final
section of this handbook had forms that mentors and their protégés should use to
create professional development action plans which would be based on the
Danielson Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007). There also were forms to
assist the new teachers in analyzing student work and planning differentiated
193
lessons based on student needs, and there were lesson observation templates and
reflection logs for the new teachers and their mentors.
When comparing the details of the new teacher induction handbook to the
nine Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction
Programs (2008) (see Appendix K for the complete document), one can see many
connections. The following standards are met through this week-long new
teacher induction program, and other standards are met through the new teacher
workshops that are held throughout the school year.
Standard 2 – Program Goals and Design because the program, as
detailed in the handbook, focuses on beginning teacher development,
support, retention of new teachers, and to improve teaching
performance. Although there is no specific mention of improved
student learning in the program goals, the design of the program
incorporates professional development in specific curricular areas,
with the objective of improving student learning.
Standard 3 – Resources because the program leadership allocates
sufficient, sanctioned, protected time essential for high quality
induction and mentoring.
Standard 5 – Mentor Selection and Assignment because the new
teacher induction handbook establishes clear guidelines for mentor
selection as defined in this standard.
Standard 7 – Development of Beginning Teacher Practice because the
program design, as established in the handbook, provides for regularly
scheduled learning opportunities, starting with an orientation at the
beginning of the school year, and continuing throughout the entire
year. Also, time is allotted to ensure the quality of the process (e.g.,
analysis of student work, observations, and reflective conversations).
194
2. Calendar of events for new teachers: September through April: A
calendar of events was created by the district’s new teacher induction facilitator,
and it was used to delineate the new teacher activities scheduled once the school
year had started. New teachers were divided into two distinct groups – Level
One was for new teachers who have two or less years of teaching experience
before being employed by this district and Level Two was for new teachers who
have more than two years of teaching experience before being employed by this
district. The new teachers and their mentors were given a calendar of events for
the entire school. The Level One teachers were required to attend all of the
planned events including one full-day workshop on classroom management and
nine after school workshops. The Level One Mentors were required to attend
four after school workshops and one half-day workshop. The topics for these
workshops included learning communities, cultural competency, parent
communication, classroom management, and other topics related to the work of
new teachers and mentors. Generally, Level Two new teachers and mentors
were invited to all of the Level One workshops, but were only required to attend
the “kick-off” workshop in September which took place at the end of a school
day.
195
This calendar of events clearly laid out the required and optional activities
for the new teachers and their mentors, and it related to the following new
teacher induction standards as detailed by the State of Illinois:
Standard 1 – Induction Program Leadership, Administration, and
Support because the calendar establishes the responsibilities of each
district-level administrator in conducting induction sessions.
Standard 2 – Program Goals and Design because the calendar provides
the organization of a planned process for program implementation for
all new teachers.
Standard 3 – Resources because the program leadership allocates
sufficient, sanctioned, protected time essential for high quality
induction and mentoring.
Standard 6 – Mentor Professional Development because the calendar
clearly establishes when and for how long the mentors will participate
in professional development., and the calendar organizes the activities
around the central concept of a mentor learning community.
Standard 7 – Development of Beginning Teacher Practice because the
calendar details the regularly scheduled learning opportunities for the
new teachers.
3. Mentor handbook: Each mentor received a comprehensive Mentor
Handbook. This large, 3-ring binder, which was titled 2013-14 Mentor Handbook
was approximately four inches thick and it was divided into seven chapters:
● Mentoring/Induction Nuts and Bolts – This section included a mentor
job description, new teacher expectations and responsibilities,
expectations for the mentor/protégé relationship, and the four domains
from Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2007).
● The Nature of the New Teacher – This section included information
regarding the professional characteristics of teachers, the
characteristics of the different stages of teacher learning, and an article
about the phases of the first year of teaching.
196
● Working with Adult Learners – This section included topics directly
related to adult learners, such as “the difference between adult and
child learners” and “the new teacher as an adult learner.”
● Exploring the Mentor’s Role – This section detailed the roles and
characteristics of effective mentors, the research on being an effective
mentor, building a trusting relationship, and different styles of
mentoring.
● Mentoring Challenges – This section provided the mentors with two
case studies. One was about building a relationship, and the other one
was about confidentiality. There also was a list of guidelines for
interactions between mentors and new teachers.
● Coaching Strategies – This section provided resources for such topics
as coaching vs. evaluation, the coaching process, mentoring
conversations, coaching behaviors, effective listening, and linking the
Danielson Framework to the needs of the new teachers.
● Resources for Mentors – This section provided additional journal
articles, forms, charts, and diagrams all related to mentoring new
teachers.
The mentor handbook aligned perfectly with Illinois Standard 6, Mentor
Professional Development. It allowed mentors to “participate in an ongoing
professional learning community that supports their reflective practice and their
use of mentoring tools, protocols, and formative assessment, as well as relevant
district tools and standards” (Illinois State Teacher Certification Board, 2008, p.
8).
Observational Data
Also during the first two months of the data collection process,
observations of one mentor meeting and two new teacher induction meetings
197
took place. The observed mentor meeting was designed to train mentors on how
to deal with new teachers who are experiencing difficulties during the first few
months of their new careers. One of the new teacher meeting observations took
place during an all-day training session on classroom management, and the other
new teacher observation took place during and after school workshop on
building classroom learning communities.
For all three observations, a T-Chart template was utilized to record
information. This T-chart consisted of a page with a dividing line down the
middle to separate the descriptive notes (portraits of the participants, a
reconstruction of dialogue, a description of the physical setting, accounts of
particular events, or activities) from the reflective notes (the researcher's personal
thoughts such as speculation, feelings, problems, ideas, hunches, impressions,
and prejudices). Table 12 details the descriptive notes from the T-Chart created
during mentor meeting which took place on October 3, 2013.
198
Table 12
Descriptive Notes from Mentor Meeting, October 3, 2013 Descriptive Notes – Mentor Meeting October 3, 2013
These are the mentors for the Level 1 New Teachers. The room was set up with rectangular
tables and 55 chairs. 50 mentors – 47 women and 3 men.
Facilitator starts on time at 4:00. Welcomes the mentors, tells them that they are doing very
important work.
Activity 1 - Reflective activity. Facilitator asks mentors to complete this honestly as they
reflect on their new relationships with their protégés. It is a quiet, independent activity
lasting about 10 minutes.
After 10 min. Table talk about their new relationships.
Activity 2 - Back in whole group. Facilitator asks mentors to check the items on a list that
they would like to get better at. Then, of the items checked in activity 1, she asks them to
circle 1 or 2 to improve upon during this mentoring year. They set some professional goals
for these couple of items.
Activity 3 - Facilitator - Focus on some of your strengths from the checklist. Then, list some
opportunities for improvement and write strategies that might work toward improvement.
Table sharing as a follow up to activity 3.Teachers share with their table mates.
Activity 4 - Facilitator leads a discussion of how to deal with a new teacher who is
experiencing difficulties. She talks about the importance of trust in these situations, and she
asks the mentors to write about what they have done so far to build trust with their protégés.
The Facilitator talks about how trust is “beyond congeniality.” It is where a person feels
comfortable opening up with you and sharing, knowing that what they say will not go any
further.
Mentor Handbook: Each mentor had received a large, 3-ring binder which they brought with
them. This was titled 2013-14 Mentor Handbook. The binder was approximately 4 inches thick
and it was divided into 7 chapters:
● Mentoring/Induction Nuts and Bolts
● The Nature of the New Teacher
● Working with Adult Learners
● Exploring the Mentor’s Role
● Mentoring Challenges
● Coaching Strategies
● Resources for Mentors
199
Standard 6 (Mentor Professional Development) of the Illinois Standards of
Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008) requires
that mentors receive professional development prior to their work with
beginning teachers, and that they continue to receive training over the course of
their work with new teachers. The observation of the mentor meeting that took
place on October 3, 2013 clearly provided evidence that the mentors in this
district are receiving ongoing training in mentoring. There are three specific
criteria from Standard 6 that were observed being met during this observation.
These criteria are:
Mentors participate in an ongoing professional learning community
that supports their reflective practice and their use of mentoring tools,
protocols, and formative assessment, as well as relevant district tools
and standards;
The mentor learning community meets for regularly scheduled
professional development and fulfills a number of purposes to deepen
mentoring skills and advance induction practices; and
Mentors engage in self-assessment and reflect on their own
development as teachers and mentors.
Considering that this meeting was one of four mentor meetings scheduled
throughout the year, the district certainly has created an ongoing professional
learning community for these teachers. In addition, there was much discussion
among the mentors fostered by the facilitator at this meeting. The extensive and
comprehensive mentor handbook, which they each have, is another example of
200
the commitment the district has toward successful mentoring. Included in this
handbook was an article that aligned well with the research on Generation Y
(Pew Research Center, 2010).
Activities 1, 2, and 3 clearly were designed for these mentors to reflect on
their practices and work toward strengthening their mentoring skills. Finally,
Activity 4 was designed to sharpen the mentors’ skills in developing trust with
their protégés, and assisting the mentors in improving their communication with
their protégés. The only piece relating to this research that was not included in
any of the mentoring PD was instructional technology.
Tables 13 and 14 detail the descriptive notes from the T-Charts created
during the new teacher meetings which took place on October 10, 2013 and
November 7, 2013 respectively.
201
Table 13
Descriptive Notes from New Teacher Meeting, October 10, 2013 Descriptive Notes – New Teacher Meeting October 10, 2013
Presented by a retired district principal. She spent her entire career from student teaching to
retirement in this district.
There are 27 Level 1 new teachers in this session. 25 are women and 2 are men.
There is a variety of teachers from K-8, sped, bilingual.
The majority are first year teachers. A few were veterans from other districts, but first year in
this district. This is half of the new teachers hired this year. A repeat of this workshop is
planned for next week with the other half.
The focus for today is class management and discipline.
They have a workbook called Successfully Teaching Challenging Students - One Day Seminar by
Rick Dahlgren, Brett Malas, Joanna Faulk, Melanie Lattimer. Published By Center for
Teacher Effectiveness.
Started with some personal reflection in workbook.
Paper folding activity - One word each section - beliefs, self-control, teach-to’s, classroom
arrangement, refocus, refocus form, St/Teacher relationships, implementation.
Some teachers shared some quick discipline stories.
Presenter then actually started the workshop with a book intro.
Then discussed three different kinds of kids:
Always kids - These are the good ones! Well-disciplined, supported from home, engaged,
hard working.
Sometimes kids - 80% of class. Inconsistent, dependent on teacher, can display low level
behaviors. take up a lot of the teacher’s time.
Never kids - Never do what you want them to do. Always present in school! The “stinkers.”
Unsupportive home environment. But, school is the safe, predictable place and maybe only
nurturing place. We educators are their best shot.
Challenge for the teachers: Paradigm shift in teaching.
Build relationships with kids. Hold class meetings. Embrace the Sometimes and Never kids.
Find something special and embrace it.
Caring is the key - that needs to be the philosophy.
“Fair does not mean equal.”
Don’t be Authoritarian or Permissive. These are the outliers for disciplining.
202
Discipline the behavior, not the student.
Conflict with students is inevitable, but combat is optional. Don’t get into power struggles
with kids.
You have to TEACH kids how to behave.
Teaching behavior - Climate and culture of your classroom is as important as teaching math
and reading.
Know your kids. Know what is going on in their lives to better understand why they behave
the way they do.
Discipline with Dignity - Good book for teachers.
Another good book for new (and even veteran) teachers is Time to Teach.
This book teaches the “ReFocus” strategy for classroom behavior for the 80% of the kids who
are generally well-behaved. It is not necessarily for BD kids. It goes like this:
1. Student is disrupting
2. Teacher asks 1. Am I able to teach? 2. Are others still able to learn? 3. Is this child still
able to learn? If yes to any of these, keep on teaching. If no, move to #3.
3. State a “start-up request” meaning tell them what to do, and say please (“Please use
quiet hands.”) Do Not use a “shut-down request” (“Stop tapping the desk.”)
4. Kid stops? Great. Does not stop, send to the “ReFocus” area either in the classroom
or in another room. Kid completes a little form, and returns to desk.
5. Teacher quietly says thank you without making a big deal.
6. Teacher meets with student later to review the form and what happened.
All of this must be taught to kids and reinforced in class meetings. The teacher must train
the kids how to do this refocusing. Talk with the kids about it being ok for a refocus moment,
because it is just like learning math or reading. It is not a punishment, just a way to
“refocus.” This is especially true if the teacher uses it in a matter of fact kind of way.
If child says “No” to refocus, teacher should keep teaching and repeat “refocus.”
Praise as much and whenever you can. Avoid sarcasm.
Say Please and Thank you to kids all the time, even during discipline events.
All of this falls within the rules of the school such as be respectful, responsible, safe,
helpful, etc.
Teachers - You send a kid out of the room to the office for discipline and you have lost your
power. The office is a great show for kids. Lots to see.
When a teacher’s kids misbehave in other areas of the school, it needs to be the teacher’s
problem, too. They are her kids. They can embarrass her. She needs to address that with
them. They represent her when at music, recess, etc.
See misbehavior - Don’t ask why they are doing it. Make a statement - “Stop doing that”
203
Discipline must be related to the behavior - punishment must fit the crime.
Focused on “Teach-To’s”
● Model - I do
● Lead - We do
● Test - You do
She says that as a principal she never dealt with discipline because they were “their kids.”
Meaning the teachers kids.
Sharing time. Many are sharing.
The descriptive notes taken at the two new teacher meetings can be
evaluated through the lenses of the three conceptual frameworks used in this
research study: Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher
Induction Programs (2008), the Nebraska RETC, and the research on Generation Y.
Because these new teacher meetings focused mainly on the topics of classroom
management, mentor relationships, and family communication, the Illinois
Standards for Induction will be the main framework used for this summary. The
other two will be touched on briefly.
204
Table 14
Descriptive Notes from New Teacher Meeting, November 7, 2013 Descriptive Notes – New Teacher Meeting November 7, 2013
62 new teachers organized at specific tables such as K, 1, 2; 3, 4, 5; middle school, special ed.
Etc.
This is a required meeting. There is a group of about 5 new teachers who were unable to
attend. They will be required to make this up.
Facilitator starts on time and praises the Teachers for being on time and so professional.
She shares a graph that shows how Nov. is the month of “disillusionment” because it is so
busy for teachers, and hard for new teachers. Created by Ellen Moir at the New teacher center.
Facilitator – focus on communication today. With Mentor and with families.
Activity 1 – document to work on related to mentors. Think about issues bothering them or
issues that they have been working on since start of year – issues that have been brought to
mentors or thinking about bringing to mentors.
How did mentor respond? How open was the mentor? How well did the mentor listen and
assist?
Facilitator – Switch gears from communicating with mentor to an article to read about
Communicating with Parents. They are asked to reflect on the aspects of the article that were
particularly meaningful to them.
Communicating with “Families” (not “parents,” b/c not all kids live with their parents).
Teachers asked to reflect on a couple of issues they have dealt with regarding family
communication – the good and the bad situations.
Facilitator - Closing activities: She led a final discussion about Danielson Domain 4. She had
the new teachers rate themselves within this Domain.
Then, each new teacher took a Post-it Note and wrote a + or <> with comments/reasons why.
This exit slip will be used to help assess the meeting. They stuck this note on a large chart on
their way out of the meeting. The Facilitator will be typing these up and sharing with the new
teachers soon.
Both of the observed new teacher meetings meet many of the criteria for
the following standards.
205
Standard 1: Induction Program Leadership, Administration, and
Support: Administrative support is evidenced through this district
employment of a new teacher induction facilitator who planned and
facilitated both of these meetings. This staff member is responsible for
all aspects of the induction meetings, including the budget necessary
to hire an outside consultant to work with the new teachers during a
full day workshop.
Standard 2 Program Goals and Design: All of the topics addressed at
these two meetings meet the criteria for this standard. For example,
the program addresses essential activities necessary for beginning
teachers to learn such as classroom management and parent
communication, both of which can be directly related to improved
student learning.
Standard 3 Resources: The district leadership has allocated resources
to fund the salary of the new teacher facilitator ($25,000 per year), the
materials and supplies for the new teachers and the mentors, and the
workshop presenter fees.
Standard 7 Development of Beginning Teacher Practice: The new
teacher meetings that were observed were aligned with the criteria for
this standard in that they provided the new teachers with
opportunities to interact in beginning teacher-only peer group
discussions, problem-solving activities, activities to address local needs
and priorities.
Standard 9 Program Evaluation: At the conclusion of the November 7
meeting the beginning teachers were asked to complete exit slips
which were collected by the facilitator. These slips were used to
evaluate the efficacy of this meeting for future planning.
According to Rebore and Walmsley (2010), when developing professional
development activities for Generation Y teachers, districts should incorporate a
variety of resource people such as senior teachers, professional consultants, and
administrators. In addition, these authors state, “Group-oriented design has
proven to be an effective method for delivering professional development
206
programs. With collaboration and group work an integral part of Generation Y
teachers, this type of program is ideal” (p. 103). The observed new teachers
meetings incorporated all of the above in an effort to meet the needs of the new
teachers.
Finally, there were no activities related to instructional technology
presented or discussed during these two observed meetings which would have
aligned with the RETC. Additionally, the activities were either face to face or
paper/pencil, and no technology was used by the new teachers as part of their
professional growth. The RETC stage 4 (Proficient), which is the highest
attainable level, calls for educator professional development to include a
“measurable correlation to district technology goals” and learning communities
that “provide continuous coaching, modeling of best practices, and school-based
mentoring.” Although, in general, coaching and modeling were observed during
these meetings, neither of these included any form of technology, whether
functional or instructional.
Generation Y Online Survey
The Generation Y online new teacher survey was conducted during
November, 2013. One hundred seventy-five new teachers were contacted via an
email which included an embedded link to the online survey. These teachers
207
represented all of the new teachers hired in the school district over the last four
years. Of the 175 teachers contacted, 76 responded by starting the survey (43%
response rate). However, because this study was geared specifically to
Generation Y teachers (those born between 1976 and 1992), there were 19
teachers (25%) who were excluded from the study because they were born before
1976, thus making them part of Generation X. Therefore, 57 Generation Y
teachers (33% of the new teachers originally contacted) completed all or part of
the survey. Figure 5 illustrates the breakdown of new teachers by year of
teaching in the district, Figure 6 illustrates the breakdown of females to males
taking the survey, and Figure 7 illustrates the range of years in which the new
teachers were born. Those born before 1976 were automatically excluded from
answering the rest of the survey questions because they did not meet the
Generation Y criteria.
208
Figure 5. Q1 - New Teachers by Year in the District
Figure 6. Q2 – Comparison of New Teachers by Gender
209
Figure 7. Q3 - Range of Birth Years for New Teachers
Figures 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 represent new teacher survey questions 4, 5, 6,
7, and 8. These questions were answered specifically by Generation Y teachers in
this district. They provide additional demographic data regarding these 57
teachers.
210
Figure 8. Q4 - New Teachers’ College Degrees Attained
211
Figure 9. Q5 - Range of Levels Taught by New Teachers
212
Figure 10. Q6 - New Teachers’ Number of Years in this District
213
Figure 11. Q7 – New Teachers’ Status in the District
214
Figure 12. Q8 – New Teachers Who Have Made Teaching Their First Career
New teacher survey questions 9 and 10 asked the teachers to rate their
technology skills in their personal and professional lives upon first being hired
by the school district. These data are illustrated in Figures 13 and 14.
215
Figure 13. Q9 – New Teachers’ Rating of Their Personal Use of Technology
216
Figure 14. Q10 – New Teachers’ Rating of Their Professional Use of Technology
Survey question 11 asked the new teachers to describe the type of
preparation they received in their college/university pre-service program related
to technology for planning, instruction, and assessment. Thirty-six responses
were recorded, and they are listed in Table 15.
217
Table 15
Responses to Q11 University Preparation in Technology
Respondent Comment
1 Took multiple courses that incorporated assistive technology for student who
have disabilities.
2 In my undergrad we used various programs tad adults to learn and
understand how to use them for students. These programs were Microsoft
office, power point, Live text, and grade level computer based websites for
literacy in math (iPads and iPods were just coming out). We also had a little
experience with smart boards. Currently in my masters, I completed a literacy
and technology integration class where we learned best practices in using
technology with literacy. Some of the tools we used were: animoto, Edmonds,
blogger, twitter, kid blog, wikis, iMovie, podcasts, book trailers, and photo
story.
3 None
4 Two technology classes, but we only used flip cameras and desktop
computers.
5 Very little
6 Not much. Basic Microsoft Office
7 We had one course for technology use and were required to use different
sources of technology through our coursework and field experience.
8 Some
9 None
10 One class
11 None
12 None
13 One class
14 A few classes
15 Unfortunately none
16 One technology for the classroom class
17 A good amount, all classes involved technology
18 One class
19 Little
20 Very limited training in iPads and Smartboards.
21 None
22 Smartboard training, use of Smartboards in field placements
23 Very little
24 Not as much as I would have expected - my university had a lab with different
types of technology in it that we OCCASIONALLY visited to try out different
218
forms of classroom technology, but we did not have any courses on it. We did
however have a very beneficial workshop on using technology with students
who have special needs.
25 Tons!! I went to Illinois state university!
26 Very little preparation with technology
27 Microsoft test, one tech class
28 Don't remember
29 Classes
30 Not much
31 Utilized a smart board (Promethean Board) during student teaching
placement
32 Mostly informal
33 It was ok. I learned the most in student teaching
34 I received very little preparation in technology use in the classroom from my
university. Most of what I have used has been self-taught or taught by a
colleague of mine.
35 Technology instruction course
36 LBS-1
Upon reviewing Table 15, it appears as if 13 of the 36 new teachers (36%)
referred to taking at least one technology class during their undergraduate
teacher preparation program. Conversely, 23 of the respondents (64%) made
some type of statement about their university technology preparation being poor
or nonexistent. These data are not necessarily consistent with the National
Center for Educational Statistics report from 2007 which found that 57% of the
pre-service teachers surveyed were instructed about how to use technology to
augment classroom instruction.
219
Survey questions 12 and 13 asked new teachers about the amount of
technology available to their students in their classrooms. See Figures 15 and 16
below.
Figure 15. Q12 – Student Access to Technology in Classrooms
220
Figure 16. Q13 – Level of Technology Tools in Classrooms
Figure 17 below compares the amount of technology the new teachers use
for instruction during the school day to the amount of technology their students
use for learning during the school day.
Survey question 16 asked new teachers to consider all of the areas in
which they use instructional technology in their work as a teacher. Figure 18
below illustrates these data.
221
Figure 17. Q14 & Q15 - Comparison of Technology Use by New Teachers and
Their Students
222
Figure 18. Q16 – Areas in Which New Teachers Use Technology
Figures 19, 20, and 21 below illustrate the students’ different uses of
technology in the new teachers’ classrooms. These questions asked about
students working collaboratively, evaluating and analyzing their assessment
information, and communicating with the global community.
223
Figure 19. Q17 – Students Using Technology to Work Collaboratively
224
Figure 20. Q18 – Students Using Technology for Evaluating and Analyzing
225
Figure 21. Q19 – Students Using Technology for Communicating with the Global
Community
New teacher survey questions 20, 21, 22, and 23 relate to the new teachers’
use of technology and 21st century instruction in their classrooms and in their
teaching (see Figures 22-25 for the respective data).
226
Figure 22. Q20 - Ways in Which New Teachers Use Tech in Classrooms
227
Figure 23. Q21 – Student-Centered Learning Opportunities
228
Figure 24. Q22 – Facilitator to Collaborate with External Entities
229
Figure 25. Q23 – The Integration of Tech on a Daily Basis
Survey questions 24 and 25 focused on the opportunities with technology
afforded the students by the school district. Both questions deal with students’
access to a variety of opportunities to use technology.
230
Figure 26. Q24 – Sequential Programs of Study in Tech
231
Figure 27. Q25 – Student Participation with Outside Organizations
Question 26 specifically asked the new teachers to rate the professional
development they received during new teacher induction week, and question 27
asked the new teachers to explain their reasoning behind this answer. These data
are presented below in Figure 28. Table 16 below lists the exact responses
provided by the 35 Generation Y teachers who answered question 27 “Why did
you give this rating?”
232
Figure 28. Q26 – Ratings of the New Teacher Induction program
Survey question 26 asked the district’s Generation Y teachers a very
important question; one that is directly related to research question 1 of this
study. Upon examining these data collected from this question, one can see that
the majority of the new teachers did not feel as if the topic of instructional
technology was even moderately effective. According to these data, 67.45% of
the 43 teachers who answered this question felt as if they received ineffective or
233
minimally effective PD related to classroom technology. Only one teacher felt as
if the PD was very or extremely effective.
Table 16
Responses to Question 27 – Reasons for Rating NTI Technology PD
Respondent Comment
1 A new teacher is worried and focused on so many aspects of getting a
classroom ready and ready to teach children. Technology is important, but a
session or workshop needs to come later in the year. It's too overwhelming.
2 I was hired late
3 Only how to utilize a few pieces of technology (Elmo, edmodo), but a lot of
learning on my own.
4 I don't remember much training in this particular area.
5 I have attended meetings and training for different types of technology, but I
feel as if there could be more resources available.
6 I didn't have any training.
7 No training on classroom technology
8 Very broad overview
9 I had to figure everything out on my own.
10 I did not receive much training on the technology I was given, and instead had
to teach myself/learn from other teachers
11 All we were given was a brief overview of what was available. It would have
been more helpful to further explain what options are available to us,
especially those of us who teach K-2.
12 Only one required training
13 A lot of stuff- don't always know how to use it best
14 During our induction process, they really didn't show us HOW technology
could be used in the classroom. They just told us what apps were available.
How is this beneficial when we do not know how to implement into the
classroom?
15 I don't remember covering technology.
16 I feel like technology was used. However, since our district is going more
IPAD based, using IPADS would have been a benefit.
17 The meeting offered insight but that is it. I learned more through student
teaching and PDS seminars.
18 I was hired after the new teacher induction process and was never given any
technology training once I was hired.
19 Only had one very quick session
234
20 I don't remember any specific technology training during the teacher
induction process.
21 We barely received any
22 I do not recall any training for technology.
23 I don't know that there was much opportunity for this that I remember during
my new hire meetings. However, I did have the opportunity to go to a few
workshops during my first year that revolved around classroom technology
that were very helpful, so these opportunities were there.
24 I had one workshop on it but honestly don't recall the information
25 I had very little professional development with regards to technology.
26 I really don't remember much technology training
27 Not applicable
28 Only some strategies were given, but not very useful
29 No PD for technology provided
30 I was not there that day.
31 The only time we talked about technology was in short 30 minute session.
Could have been A LOT more.
32 As a new teacher I attended one 1-hour session about technology and it only
glossed over what was available for use and did not explain how to use the
technology provided or how to help my students use the technology
provided.
33 I did not participate in new teacher induction process because I was hired
after that process took place.
34 We did not get any training on the types of technology available. A quick run
down the list is not effective for someone who used a different tool in another
district, or never used any tools at all.
35 Ineffective if at all prevalent
Key area six, Content of Technology Training, which is part of the
Educator Competencies and Professional Development section of the Nebraska
RETC, affirms the importance of teachers learning to use technology in their
classrooms. To attain stages 3 or 4 on this rubric, a school district must provide
training on the integration of technology into instructional strategies in order to
improve teaching and learning. Based on these data collected from questions 26
235
and 27, the Generation Y new teachers in the school district under review in this
case study perceive that the district is not providing adequate professional
development for its new teachers in the area of instructional technology.
Upon review of these data in Table 16, one can see that none of the new
teachers responded positively when providing their reasons. Instead, all 35
respondents made such statements as “I didn’t have any training,” “I had to
figure everything out on my own,” “Only had one very quick session,” and “The
only time we talked about technology was in short 30 minute session. Could
have been A LOT more.” Furthermore, those teachers hired after the five-day
new teacher induction meetings in early August did not receive any district
developed professional development in the use of technology for planning,
instruction, or assessment.
These data from Figure 28 and Table 16, in conjunction with the research
on pre-service teacher education in the area of instructional technology (see
Table 15) begs the question as to why the district in this research study provides
one hour of training during the five-day new teacher induction week and no
technology training for new teachers over the course of the first school year.
As a follow-up to questions 26 and 27, the Generation Y new teachers
were asked to check the areas in which they received the technology professional
236
development. Twenty-seven of the 57 (47%) Generation Y teachers chose to
answer this question. These data are presented in Figure 29.
Figure 29. Q28 – Areas of Technology PD Received During NTI Meetings
New teacher survey questions 29 through 32 expanded on the
professional development received by the Generation Y teachers by asking about
the process across the entire first school year. For the first year teachers, one of
the answer choices was “N/A – I have not yet completed my first year.” Figure
30 illustrates these data for question 29 which specifically asked how much PD
the new teachers received over the course of the first year in the school district.
237
Based on these data, 45 new teachers answered question 29, 39 as that they had
completed at least one full year of teaching in the school district. Among these
39 new teachers, 68% felt as if the amount of ongoing professional development
over the course of their first year was no better than moderate. Conversely,
15.6% felt that the amount was relatively high, while only one new teacher
thought the amount was extremely high.
According to Standard 7 of the Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness
for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008) beginning teachers should have
regularly scheduled learning opportunities that continue throughout the school
year. One area for further consideration in this research study is the dichotomy
between the district-provided artifacts which document a full year’s worth of
new teacher induction meetings and the new teachers’ answers to question 29. If
the district is providing this much professional development for the new
teachers, then why do 68% of them feel as if this is a moderate or less than
satisfactory amount?
238
Figure 30. Q29 – How much PD New Teachers Received During First Year
Figure 31 displays these data for the more specific question related to the
quality of the PD in the area of technology over the course of the first year. In this
instance, 72.5% of the second through fourth year new teachers felt that the
quality of the technology professional development was of moderate quality or
less, while only five teachers (12.5%) felt that the quality of the technology PD
was of relatively or extremely high quality.
The Nebraska RETC clearly articulates that the most effective professional
development for instructional technology should be available any time, at any
239
level, and through a variety of delivery systems (e.g. distance learning, on-line
coursework, state and national conferences, outside consultants, etc.). When
comparing the responses to questions 29 and 30, the new teachers have made it
clear that they want more professional development, and one area they want
specifically is in instructional technology.
One of the attributes of Generation Y, as described by Treuren and
Anderson (2010), is a demand for professional growth and development. These
data, presented in Figure 30 and Figure 31, provide evidence that the new
teachers in this school district are not highly pleased with the amount or quality
of the professional development they received during their first year in the
district.
240
Figure 31. Q30 – Quality of Tech PD New Teachers Received During First Year
Survey question 31 delineates the point that the Generation Y teachers
desire more PD in the area of technology. They were asked to write why they
gave the specific rating in question 30. Twenty-one respondents chose to answer
this question, and of this group, 16 (76%) articulated that they received very little
or no training in the use of technology during their first year teaching in the
district. The full list of their responses is listed in Table 17 below.
241
Table 17
Quality of Tech PD During First Year in the District
Respondent Comment
1 The first year teacher meetings, staff trained us on how to use FileMaker.
2 Again, as I stated before it is overwhelming for new teachers. They just need
the very, very basics or easy steps in using technology in the class and got
instruction. The following year is a better time to fine tune this for new
teachers.
3 No classes for new teachers on how to use certain technology websites for
communication.
4 I don't think any of my trainings were related to technology.
5 I believe I could have figured out a lot of the training on my own.
6 I haven't received any training.
7 Not much offered that I remember
8 There were opportunities but not necessarily great ones. We had to get trained
in recordings for the blind, and it was a wasted day - the equipment provided
by the grant was not user friendly. Would have made more sense to learn
something that teachers would actually want to use.
9 Not enough PD in this area
10 Many training opportunities are offered.
11 I learned a lot from these trainings and at one point or another I have already
used the skills and strategies that I have learned from them.
12 Beside the one seminar from XX, this was the only meeting we had. I would
have liked more explicit ideas.
13 I was not given any training by the district; I elected to attend some training
provided by my school.
14 Presenter was interesting and knowledgeable
15 I don't recall any specific technology training from the district my first year as
a teacher in this district.
16 There was little to no training.
17 I received very little.
18 I didn’t get any.
19 There was not any.
20 I have only attended one session and it was very brief
21 I've only had iPad training through the school/district.
22 Sometimes inapplicable
242
Survey question 32 asked the Generation Y teachers to detail who
provided the professional development during the first year of teaching in the
school district. The respondents were allowed to check as many people as
applicable. Figure 32 details these data.
Numerous researchers have written about the high level of technological
comfort Generation Y teachers bring to the classroom. Berhrstock and Clifford
(2009) write that Generation Y teachers are comfortable with technology, and
they are dissatisfied with technology inferior workplaces, and Rebore and
Walmsley (2010) state that Generation Y teachers communicate more through
technology than in person. Finally, Treuren and Anderson (2010) write that
those in Generation Y have a desire for appropriate workplace leadership. Yet,
these data collected in this research indicate that the school district is not fully
responsive to the specific needs of Generation Y teachers as related to
instructional technology.
243
Figure 32. Q32 – Those Who Provided PD During First Year
244
This research highlights the need for school and district leadership to
support the new teachers in the area of instructional technology. These data from
survey questions 33 and 34 display the amount of support the Generation Y
teachers received in the area of instructional technology from both the school
administration and the district administration. Figure 33 below illustrates these
data. Upon studying these data, one can observe that there is a level of
contradiction with the comments made by the respondents in Table 17. If the
new teachers felt supported by the school and district-level administrators, then
why would 76% of those responding to question 31 articulate that they received
little or no training in the use of technology during their first year teaching in the
school district?
245
Figure 33. Q33 & Q34 – Comparison of Instructional Tech Support from School
and District Administrators
246
One could make the assumption that after a year of teaching and receiving
professional development, Generation Y teachers would have made considerable
growth in the use of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment, especially with the research finding that Generation Y teachers come
into the profession with a very high comfort level with technology. When
studying these data from Figure 14, one can observe that 92% of the new teachers
believe that their skills with technology use in the classroom were moderately to
extremely high when first hired by the school district.
These data can be compared to those data from survey question 35 which
asked the Generation Y teachers to rate their professional understanding of
technology after one year of teaching. Figure 34 below details these data which
show that a combined 82% of the Generation Y teachers fell into the moderately
to extremely high ranges. This begs the question why did this percentage drop
after one year of teaching?
Question 36 was a follow-up question which asked the new teachers if
they were capable of mentoring a new teacher in the use of instructional
technology. The basis for this question was the assumption that Generation Y
teachers with strong technology skills would be ready to mentor others after one
year of teaching. Figure 35 below illustrates that 64% of the respondents are
247
either neutral or not confident in their abilities to mentor others in the use of
instructional technology after one year of teaching. On the flipside, 31% felt
relatively capable of mentoring, and only 5% felt extremely capable of mentoring
a new teacher.
Figure 34. Q35 – New Teachers’ Understanding of Technology Use at the End of
Year One
248
Figure 35. Q36 – New Teachers’ Ability to Mentor Others After One Year of
Teaching
Question 37 from the Generation Y survey asked respondents to identify
which professional development activities assist them to learn best. According
to the RETC, the highest degree of professional development for teachers in the
area of technology should include “Learning communities created among
instructional staff to provide continuous coaching, modeling of best practices,
249
and school-based mentoring” (p. 6 of 10). Furthermore, additional professional
development should be available any time, at any level, through a variety of
delivery systems such as distance learning, on-line course work, state and
national conferences, and outside consultants.
In this area, the RETC is aligned with the research on Generation Y
teachers. Rebore and Walmsley (2010) state that “the most effective professional
development structure for new teachers is the concept of professional learning
communities” (p. 97). These authors continue by explaining that “PLCs have an
inherent structure with four major focuses that fit well with the needs of
Generation Y teachers including: (1) learning rather than teaching, (2)
collaboration, (3) viewing all members of the community as learners, (4) self-
accountability” (p. 97). Generation Y teachers prefer choice and differentiation in
order to address their PD needs. Additionally, they prefer to be part of an online
learning community which incorporates such environments as embedded
videos, audio files, Google documents, and discussion boards (Taranto, 2011).
Furthermore, Cogshall, Behrstock-Sherratt, and Drill (2011) report that
Generation Y teachers require professional development that provides
differentiation and individualized support. Figure 36 below illustrates how this
research is reflected in these data collected through question 37. As one can see,
250
blended PD was the most popular among the respondents, and this is consistent
with the Cogshall, et al. report.
Figure 36. Q37 – How New Teachers Learn Best
Finally, question 38 asked the new teachers to detail what they need in the
area of PD in order to effectively incorporate technology into their instruction.
Table 18 details their responses to this question.
251
Table 18
Q38 – What New Teachers Need in the Area of Instructional Technology
Respondent Comment
1 Adding iPad apps. It is so difficult to add the ones that would best fit the
students in the class.
2 I think I (and others) need time to dabble and try some of the things that we
know or have learned. Then, we need another survey or forum to share
concerns or needs of improvement so that the district may design sessions
based on needs.
3 Examples
4 Time
5 Training with how to use iPads.
6 I would love to have access to smart boards and more training in iPad usage
in the classroom.
7 Training
8 More theory into practice - practical examples - time to collaborate with
others.
9 More iPad training. Always more iPad training.
10 More smart board training
11 Access to more iPad apps, discussion/collaboration with other kindergarten
teachers to see how they implement technology into their classrooms. It is
very different to implement technology with 5 year olds than with older kids!
12 How to best incorporate
13 Technology to use
14 An online resource that directs us to lessons that use technology in all content
areas would be a great tool.
15 I enjoy seeing examples of how technology is used in class as well as time to
plan the implementation of these ideas.
16 Training on how to incorporate iPads into curriculum and not just as extra
practice.
17 Training, especially with apps on iPads
18 I feel completely supported by the district technology team. However, I don't
remember them at all the first year or two of teaching in this district. I don't
lack any PD in effectively incorporating technology. The assistance I want, I
am already receiving.
19 Content specific ways to meaningfully incorporate technology into my
curriculum
20 Assistance in regards to purchasing worthwhile SPANISH programming
21 More information on educational apps for iPads, as well as different ways to
incorporate iPads into my curriculum
252
22 N/A
23 Ways to utilize it in the classroom
24 Examples of how to incorporate technology into lessons and the classroom
25 Hands on mentoring
26 Time to learn new tools and especially programs
27 I need concrete ideas of how to use certain technology tools in the classroom.
i.e Rather than telling me what the app does, tell me how I can incorporate
this app into instruction in a meaningful way.
28 More professional development time.
29 Convenient access to technology
Table 19 below was created to summarize the written responses received
from question 38. All 29 responses are accounted for, except for respondent
number 18 who does not have any needs, and respondent number 22 who
answered with N/A.
These data in Table 19 show that the new teachers are interested in more
training and professional development in the use of apps for the iPad (this
district has invested heavily in iPads over the last two years), the purchasing of
more apps, and more ways to incorporate technology in the classrooms (which
falls under the classification of training/professional development). When
evaluating these needs against the Nebraska RETC, one can see that, according to
these new teachers, the district may be falling short in the key area of
instructional technology staffing and budgeting which are part of the Technology
Administration and Support section (p. 1 of 10).
253
Table 19
Q38 – Summary of PD Needs with Technology
Responses Number of
Responses
More training/PD for iPads, Smartboards, 8
More Apps 5
How to incorporate technology in classroom 5
More examples 3
More time to dabble with and try technology 3
More convenient access to technology 1
More mentoring 1
More online resources 1
This conclusion can be made based on numerous comments made by
principals regarding the need for more human resources (staffing) in the area of
technology training and support. Additional staffing is a budgetary issue school
districts must grapple with yearly, and this district is no exception. In addition,
there is a cost to purchasing more apps for the 3,000 iPads that have been
purchased for the students and staff.
254
In addition, one can see that, according to these new teachers, the district
may be falling short in the RETC key areas of professional development and
models of professional development which are part of the Educator
Competencies and Professional Development section (p. 6 of 10). These data
show that the new teachers are asking for more professional development in the
use of technology for planning, instruction, and assessment.
In comparing these instructional technology needs to both the Illinois
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs
(2008) and the district’s new teacher induction documents, one can start to make
the assumption that not enough training/professional development is being
provided for new teachers during their entire first year of teaching in the school
district. Standard 7 of the Illinois Standards document details the expectations
for the development of beginning teacher practices. The use of technology for
planning, instruction, and assessment certainly is an important part of the
teaching practices of all teachers, thus the question is whether one hour of
training in this area during the entire year-long new teacher induction process is
sufficient.
Generation Y teachers have been raised in an environment where
technology is omnipresent. However, the ability to use technology in one’s
255
personal life does not necessarily translate into the effective use of technology in
teaching. Generation Y teachers require PD in which they can communicate and
collaborate with their peers, where they are offered choices based on their
specific needs, and in which they can be self-directed in their professional
learning (Rebore & Walmsley, 2010). In addition, these teachers prefer a blended
approach to PD which may include the use of technology for their professional
learning. With these needs in mind, is the school district being studied for this
research project providing the necessary training to meet the needs of its
Generation Y new teachers?
Summary
In this chapter, the researcher presented the findings from interviews of
six district-level school administrators and seven elementary and junior high
school principals. The interviews consisted of 19 questions. In addition, the
researcher presented the findings from an online survey of 57 new teachers who
all belong to Generation Y. The survey consisted of 38 questions. Third, the
researcher presented the observations of three meetings that were part of the
new teacher induction program developed by the school district participating in
this case study research project. Finally, the researcher detailed artifacts that
were collected relating to the school district’s new teacher induction program.
256
The administrator and principal interviews were conducted over the
telephone, recorded on an iPad, and transcribed, word for word, by a
professional online transcription service. Twenty-seven people were initially
contacted via email and asked to participate in the interview process. A total of
13 were eventually interviewed. For the online survey, a link was emailed to a
total of 175 teachers in the school district. All of these teachers are new to the
district within the last four years. Data from this survey was collected over the
course of the month of November, 2013. For all of the completed surveys, these
data were collected via Survey Monkey™ and displayed in graphs and charts.
The new teacher induction meeting observations took place at three different
meetings in October and November, 2013. Artifacts were collected through
email and through face-to-face meetings with the district’s new teacher induction
facilitator.
The Nebraska Rubric of Essential Conditions (RETC) was used to develop
the questions related to instructional technology that were asked as part of the
interview process and for the online new teacher survey. The questions related
to new teacher induction for the interviews and survey were developed from the
Illinois State Teacher Certification Board’s nine Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008). The questions related
257
to Generation Y teachers were culled from the research on Generation Y teachers
conducted by this researcher.
In the next chapter, the researcher will use these data collected to discuss
common themes and answer the following research questions:
1. What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in order for them to appropriately utilize
technology in their planning, instruction, and assessment?
2. What recommendations should be made for all school districts in order
for them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best
uses of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment?
3. What are the implications for school leaders?
258
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction
This study deeply examined one school district that is considered
"exemplary" in the use of technology for planning, instruction, and assessment
based on the fact that it has been recognized nationally as a leader in the use of
technology. In 1998 the district received the National School Board Association's
Institute for Transfer of Technology to Education (NSBA/ITTE) Video Salute for
creating improved teaching and learning environments using technology, and
again in 1998 it was the first recipient of the Reed Hundt Award from the
National School Board Association for excellence in the effective use of
technology. In addition, this district was the 2003 recipient of the Malcolm
Baldridge National Quality Award. Finally, the district was awarded the 2004
Technology Leadership Network Trailblazer Award.
More recently, this district has received the following accolades from the
educational community.
259
A seventh grade reading/language arts teacher was the 2013 recipient
of the Illinois Computing Educators (ICE) "Educator of the Year
Award" for his work embedding technology into his instruction.
Since 2011, 13 teachers have won the "Those Who Excel" award from
the Illinois State Board of Education, including a team of two teachers
who won for their work with assistive technology.
Nine of the district's 20 schools have been recognized by the United
States Department of Education as Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence.
Since 2011, 20 teachers have earned their National Board Certification.
Motorola Solutions Foundation has awarded nearly $110,000 to this
district in grant money to assist students who wish to further pursue
their interests in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The district's educational foundation awarded the schools with funds
to purchase iPads in May 2012.
Furthermore, in 2012 this district launched a STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) program to develop 21st century skills among all
of its middle school students.
The purpose of this dissertation was: (1) to deeply study one school
district that is exemplary in the use of instructional technology to enhance
teachers' planning, instruction, and assessment; (2) to determine how this school
district trains its Generation Y teachers in the use of technology; and, (3) to make
recommendations to educational leaders as to the best plans for teacher
induction in the area of educational technology.
The ultimate goal of a successful new teacher induction program is to
retain the very best new teachers in the field of education. According to Breaux
260
and Wong (2003), "New teachers must be trained if we want them to succeed; it
is much better to train new teachers and risk losing them than not to train them
and risk keeping them" (p. v). In addition, "An induction process is the best way
to send a message to your teachers, a message that you value them and want
them to succeed and stay" (p. v). This dissertation has addressed the issues of
instructional technology competencies as they are related to new teacher
induction.
Through the use of qualitative research methods, this researcher
interviewed six district-level administrators and seven principals. This
researcher also sent an electronic survey, via email, to 175 new teachers which
garnered a response rate of 43%. In addition, artifacts related to the district’s
new teacher induction and mentoring programs were collected, and finally,
observations of new teacher and mentor meetings took place. This chapter
presents the analysis of data, interpretations, and conclusions in response to the
following research questions:
1. What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in order for them to appropriately utilize
technology in their planning, instruction, and assessment?
261
2. What recommendations should be made for all school districts in order
for them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best
uses of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment?
3. What are the implications for school leaders?
This chapter will answer these questions by presenting an analysis of data,
interpretations of these data, links between these data and related literature,
conclusions, and calls for further research on the topic of new teacher induction
in the area of instructional technology. Figure 37 below illustrates how the
Nebraska Rubric of Essential Technology Conditions – RETC (2006) and the
Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction
Programs (2008) are at the center of these data that have been collected and
analyzed in a triangulated method. All three areas of data collection were
focused directly on both the rubric and the list of standards.
262
Figure 37. Data Triangulation
Conclusions
Research Question 1
What constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program for
Generation Y teachers in order for them to appropriately utilize technology in
their planning, instruction, and assessment?
The answer to this question will be provided in two phases. First, one
must determine whether the school district involved in this case study is
generally providing a high quality new teacher induction program (NTI). The
nine standards from the Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning
Teacher Induction Programs (2008) will be used to evaluate all aspects of this
Observations and artifact reviews
Administrator Interviews
Nebraska Rubric
&
Illinois NewTeacher Induction Standards
Generation Y Teacher Surveys
263
district’s new teacher induction program. Then, based on this district’s NTI
program, one can draw conclusions as to a high quality induction program for
other school districts. Second, one must determine if the district under review in
this case study is providing appropriate professional development throughout
the new teacher induction process to assist Generation Y teachers in effectively
utilizing technology in their planning, instruction, and assessment. Then, based
on these data, one can draw conclusions about the appropriate inclusion of
technology in a new teacher induction program.
Phase 1: The District’s New Teacher Induction Program
The school district upon which this case study was based appears to have
a comprehensive new teacher induction program. The new teachers are divided
into two groups: Level 1 is for those new teachers who have two or less years of
teaching experience before being employed in this district. Level 2 is for those
teachers who have more than two years of teaching experience prior to being
hired to teach in this district. The New Teacher Induction Facilitator, when
answering interview question #2, described the thought process behind these
two levels like this:
Our feeling is, the people who we target with the most intense work are
the brand-new people, because they're the ones that research has shown
need the most support, and also are still in a formative stage in their
264
development as teachers, so that it makes sense to ground them in what
we feel is best practices early on in the district. So with that, the new
teacher workshops, three of them are for level one new teachers. The level
two new teachers are invited to only one. And I try to be very flexible
about that, because we define new teacher as a new professional hire. So
among our "new teachers" would be psychologists, social workers, people
of that nature that don't have traditional classroom jobs. And so when it
comes to the new teacher workshop that is required for all of the new
hires, I'm very flexible if what we're doing, usually it's classroom based.
The majority of our new hires are classroom teachers. So when we have a
situation where it's totally not going to be that useful for somebody to
attend the workshop, we offer them the opportunity either through their
coordinator, sometimes the coordinator will provide an alternative, and
other times we, if they have gone to things outside the district in their
field, if they can show the evidence of completion, we accept that.
Generally, Level 1 new teachers are required to attend five full days of
new teacher meetings in August before school begins. In addition, there are
numerous required meetings throughout the course of the school year for new
teachers and for their mentors. For the five days in August, the new teachers are
divided into like-groups for many of the new teacher meetings such as grades K-
2, grades 3-6, grades 7-8, specials (art, music, PE), special education, school
psychologists, etc. These like groups receive new teacher inservice training
separately from each other in order to address their specific job-related needs.
The main tenets of the program are listed below:
Five full days of new teacher meetings in August before the school year
begins. These meetings included the following activities:
o Welcome; introductions, explanation of the “District Experience”;
265
o Luncheon hosted by the Board of Education;
o Curriculum overview;
o Detailed curriculum meetings in the areas of mathematics and
literacy;
o Mentoring processes;
o Demonstration classroom visits;
o RtI
o Cultural competency and diversity;
o Instructional technology; and
o Benefits.
Mentor program in which every new teacher is assigned a mentor. The
following are the New teacher/Mentoring program goals:
o To improve teaching performance with an emphasis on the
Danielson Framework for teaching and the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards.
o To establish a collaborative professional team responsible for
providing assistance and support for new teachers and their
mentors.
o To educate new teachers about district and site-based cultural
norms.
o To promote self-reflective inquiry and practice among new teachers
to develop a positive professional identity.
o To increase the retention rate of quality members of the teaching
staff during the induction years.
Year-long new teacher induction meetings (September through April).
These meetings are all held at the district office. The following are the
main topics addressed at these meetings:
o Classroom management;
o Learning communities;
o Danielson Framework for Teaching;
o Analysis of student work;
o Parent and family communication;
o Mentoring;
o Cultural competency;
o Differentiation.
266
In 2008, the Illinois State Teacher Certification Board developed the nine
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs.
These nine standards were used as the conceptual framework to determine
whether the school district being studied for this research project is providing an
appropriate new teacher induction process. Each of the nine standards listed
below is followed by accompanying data culled from the administrator
interviews, the artifacts that were reviewed, and the new teacher and mentor
meeting observations.
Standard 1: Induction Program Leadership, Administration, and Support
The induction program has an administrative structure with specified
leaders who plan, implement, evaluate and refine the program through
data analysis, program evaluation, and stakeholder communication linked
to relevant standards.
The school district employs a New Teacher Induction Facilitator who
plans, coordinates, and facilitates the new teacher induction program. This
employee is a retired, National Board Certified teacher and administrator who
spent her career working in this district. She acts as the liaison between the
district administrators, the mentors, and the newly hired teachers, she has
developed and is continually updating the new teacher and mentor induction
meeting agendas and handbooks, and she facilitates all new teacher and mentor
meetings throughout the course of the school year. This facilitator is responsible
267
for all areas of program planning, implementation, evaluation, and
communication.
When asked about the planning of the new teacher induction process
(interview question #3), all six district-level administrators referred to the work
of the New Teacher Induction Facilitator. When asked about their role in
conducting new the new teacher induction program (interview question #4), the
district-level administrators again referred to the work of the New Teacher
Induction Facilitator, however, three of the administrators assisted during the
new teacher meetings that took place in August before school begins. The
principals’ roles in the new teacher induction process are limited. This will be
addressed in the discussion of Standard 4 below.
Standard 2: Program Goals and Design
Local program design is focused on beginning teacher development,
support, retention and improved student learning. The goals are guided
by current induction research, effective practices, Illinois Standards of
Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs, the
district/school improvement plan and local concerns/context.
According to the district’s Teacher Induction/Mentoring Handbook (2013),
there are five goals of this program. These goals, which are listed above, cover
most of the areas detailed in this standard including beginning teacher
development, support, and retention. Two areas related to the research included
268
in this study that are not specifically stated in the district’s goals are “improved
student learning” and the incorporation of instructional technology professional
development to meet the needs of new teachers who may bring some personal
technology skills to the district.
Numerous researchers have found that increasing student achievement
should be a goal in new teacher induction programs if they intend on being
effective (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hanover Research, 2012; New Teacher
Center, 2012; Wood & Stanulis, 2009). Although the mention of student
achievement is not in the list of goals, the new teacher induction program, as
detailed in the Teacher Induction/Mentor Handbook (2013), focuses on
beginning teacher development, supporting and retaining new teachers, and
improving teacher performance. Upon further review of the artifacts collected
for this research, including the New Teacher Induction Handbook (2013), the
calendar of events for new teachers, and the Teacher Induction/Mentor
Handbook (2013), and one can see that the design of the program incorporates
numerous and extensive professional development in specific curricular areas,
with the objective of improving student learning.
On the other hand, there is no mention of technology in the new teacher
induction goals, and only one hour is dedicated to professional development
269
during the entire first year of teaching in this district. Numerous researchers
(Behrstock & Clifford, 2009; NAS Recruitment Communication, 2006; NAS
Recruitment Communication, 2006; Prensky, 2001; Prensky, 2012; Rebore &
Walmsley, 2010) have articulated that Generation Y teachers have grown up and
are entering teaching with a high personal comfortable level with technology,
collaboration, and innovation. However, being comfortable with the personal
use of technology and using it for instructional purposes are two different things.
This will be explored later in this chapter.
Standard 3 – Resources
Program leadership allocates and monitors sufficient resources to meet all
goals and deliver program components to all participants.
The school district provides for a part-time new teacher induction
facilitator at a cost of $25,000 per year, and it provides resources for the
materials, supplies, and outside speakers used throughout the NTI process.
Thus, the district leadership has demonstrated the willingness to provide the
financial resources necessary to deliver its new teacher induction program.
Standard 4 – Site Administrator Roles and Responsibilities
Site administrators lead efforts to create a positive climate for the delivery
of all essential program components. Site administrators and program
leadership collaborate to ensure that they are well prepared to assume
their responsibilities for supporting beginning teachers in the induction
program.
270
The school principals’ involvement in the new teacher induction process is
minimal in this district. This is evidenced by their answers to certain interview
questions. All of the principals were able to articulate that the new teacher
induction meetings cover five full days in August, and 4/7 (57%) of the principals
stated that mentoring is a part of the program. When asked what their role in
the planning of new teacher induction was, the principals stated that they select
the mentors for the new teachers, and they provide planning time in their
buildings for the new teachers to work with their mentors before school begins.
One principal specified that, “We're able to review the week long induction
topics and give our feedback as principals. That information was sought when
we had someone new take over the role, so we were able to give our feedback
there. One afternoon of that week is spent in the building with principals so we
can go over building level topics that we need the teachers to know.” Another
explained that, “The only planning that I’m involved in is the time that’s
allocated to me at the building level, about three hours of their … I would guess
it’s probably about 30 hours of training, and I get I think about three hours with
them.”
As a follow-up question, the principals were asked what their role was in
conducting or participating in new teacher activities. Four of the seven
271
responded that they provide a school-based orientation to the new teachers
during one afternoon in August, and three others mentioned that they attend the
new teacher luncheon.
Finally, when asked whether they were pleased with their district’s new
teacher induction program, all seven principals said that they were. For
example, one of the principals stated,
Yes actually I am. I feel like they have really come in with a good
understanding of how to start the school year off. Then there are built in
days when they are with other new teachers across the district or other
new teachers and their mentors throughout the entire school year. There
are set days where they will be relieved from classroom duty to go to
learn about something else or to follow up and see how things are going.
They have this whole official program that lasts the entire school year.
Then in Year 2 they still offer additional opportunities but they are
voluntary.
Another principal said, “I am. I think they do a great job. They also send out a
survey to principals every year, asking how we think it went, if there's any gaps
we believe the candidates are coming in missing, and they try to revisit that
every year when they plan the next year's sessions.”
This standard requires that principals collaborate with the NTI program
leadership to “ensure that they are well prepared to assume their responsibilities
for supporting beginning teachers in the induction program.” One would
question whether selecting mentors, providing some indirect input, providing
272
time for new teachers to work in the building during new teacher week, and
attending a new teacher luncheon meet the criteria for excellence under Standard
4. Interestingly, although the principals do not participate much in the planning
or conducting of the new teacher induction program, all seven of them stated
that they are pleased with the program.
Standard 5 – Mentor Selection and Assignment
Mentors are recruited, selected and assigned using a comprehensive
strategy that includes a clearly articulated, open process and specific
criteria that are developed by and communicated to all stakeholder
groups.
The district under review in this case study has a comprehensive mentor
program that was developed and is coordinated by the current New Teacher
Induction Facilitator. The district’s principals are expected to choose the mentors
for their schools based on the needs of the new teachers and the matching
qualifications of the mentor teachers. The principals must use the district’s
“Rubric for Mentor Selection” and the district’s “Mentor Selection Criteria” when
choosing mentors. A clearly written job description is available which details the
duties and responsibilities of the new teacher mentors. In addition, the job
description provides specific activities, meetings, and training sessions in which
all mentors are required to participate. During the August new teacher
273
induction week, the principals meet with the mentors and their new teacher
protégés to ensure a smooth start to the mentoring relationship.
The district’s comprehensive plan for mentor selection is aligned with
research completed by The Alliance for Excellent Education (2004) which defines
high quality mentoring as “structured mentoring from a carefully selected
teacher or teachers who work in the same field or subject as the new teacher, are
trained to coach new teachers, and can help improve the quality of teachers’
practice” (p. 2). The focus here is on the phrase “carefully selected.” This school
district’s mentor selection process appears to be carefully thought-out and
implemented.
Standard 6 – Mentor Professional Development
Mentor professional development provides a formal orientation and
foundational mentor training before they begin their work with beginning
teachers and should continue over the course of the mentor’s work with
beginning teachers. Mentors have time, supported by the program, to
engage in this mentor learning community and are consistently supported
in their efforts to assist beginning teachers in their development, with a
focus on student learning.
Each mentor receives a 200 page mentor handbook that is divided into the
following chapters:
1. Mentoring/Induction Nuts and Bolts
2. Nature of the New Teacher
3. Working with Adults Learners
4. Exploring the Mentor’s Role
274
5. Mentoring Challenges
6. Coaching Strategies
7. Resources for Mentors.
Additionally, the mentors gather four times per year as a group to work with the
New Teacher Induction Facilitator. One of these after school meetings was
observed by this researcher. There were 50 mentors in the meeting room. Under
the direction of the New Teacher Induction Facilitator, the mentors were divided
into small groups to complete some activities revolving around their reflections
of the first month of school. They also completed some goals for the year of
mentoring. The facilitator called these mentor teachers “professional growth
facilitators,” and she modeled ways the mentors should work with their
protégés. To start the meeting, the facilitator stated, “If you weren’t all wise
people and good models of teaching, you would not have been chosen by your
principals to be mentors.” This meeting ended with the facilitator talking about
the importance of developing trust with the new teachers. She asked the
mentors to write what they have done so far to build trust with their protégés,
and she explained how trust goes “beyond congeniality” where a person feels
comfortable to open up and share one’s feelings.
The New Teacher Center (www.newteachercenter.org), a national non-
profit organization dedicated to improving student learning by accelerating the
275
effectiveness of new teachers and school leaders, has created a model of new
teacher induction that includes five key implantation phases. Upon starting
phase 2 which is year one implementation, the model calls for “Mentor
Academies” which continue through years two and three of the new teacher
induction program (http://www.newteachercenter.org/induction-programs).
The professional development given to the mentors in the district under
review in this case study appears to be very comprehensive. Although the
training modules do not continue past the first year of mentoring, the
comprehensive mentoring handbook provides numerous strategies and
resources which, assuming it will be read by the mentors, can be used by the
mentors for years after their official mentoring duties are completed.
Standard 7 – Development of Beginning Teacher Practice
Beginning teachers have regularly scheduled time, provided during the
two year program, to participate in ongoing professional development
that is focused on their professional growth to support student learning.
New teachers in this school district receive regularly scheduled training in
the following areas of teacher practice:
Classroom management and student discipline;
Mathematics instruction;
Literacy instruction;
Response to Intervention programs;
Setting up a student-friendly classroom;
Supporting diversity in the classroom;
276
Cultural competencies; and
Instructional technology.
Based on this standard, the key to a successful NTI program is one that is
focused on “professional growth to support student learning.” The new teachers
in this district receive five full days of training before school starts, and then they
receive additional training throughout the school year in the areas listed above.
Some of the areas receive a greater focus as determined by the amount of time
dedicated to each area. For example, a full day is set aside for training on
classroom management, five hours are dedicated to training in the district’s math
and literacy programs, and four hours are dedicated to cultural competency.
However, only one hour is dedicated for instructional technology.
Standard 8 – Formative Assessment
Beginning teachers and mentors participate in formative assessment
experiences, collaboratively collecting and analyzing measures of teaching
progress, including appropriate documentation, mentor observations and
student work, to improve classroom practices and increase student
achievement.
Formative assessment experiences are based on the Danielson Framework
for Teaching (Danielson, 2007). Each mentor/protégé pair must complete an
action plan for each of the four Danielson domains. Included in this assessment
process are formative lesson observations conducted by each mentor and based
on Domains Two and Three of the Danielson Framework. In addition, all new
277
teachers are required to analyze student work under the direction of their
mentors, and they are required to show evidence of lesson differentiation to meet
the needs of all learners in the classroom.
Wood and Sanulis (2009) list five goals necessary for quality new teacher
induction. These are:
Increase novice teachers’ retention,
Promote novice teacher personal and professional well-being
Improve teacher competence,
Improve students’ academic achievement through improving teacher
performance,
Satisfy mandated requirements related to induction and certification
(pp. 4-5).
The Danielson mentor observations and the analysis of student work by the
mentors and protégés fulfill the third and fourth goals listed above.
Standard 9 – Program Evaluation
Programs operate a comprehensive, ongoing system of program
development and evaluation that involves all program participants and
other stakeholders.
These data collected to support this standard came from the “exit slips”
that the New Teacher Induction Facilitator collected at the end of each new
teacher and mentor meeting. She compiles the information from these slips and
shares these data with the new teachers and the mentors at a later date.
278
Additionally, the principals are surveyed to capture their assessments regarding
the new teacher induction process.
Summary of Phase One
The following table summarizes whether the school district participating
in this case study is providing a high quality new teacher induction program or
not. With the district’s NTI program meeting eight of the nine standards, all
indications are that their program should be considered a “High Quality
Program” as defined by the Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for
Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008) (see Table 20 below).
Table 20
Meeting or Not Meeting Illinois New Teacher Induction Standards (*not including
instructional technology)
Illinois New Teacher
Induction Standard
Meets Does Not
Meet
Standard 1 X
Standard 2 X*
Standard 3 X
Standard 4 X
Standard 5 X
Standard 6 X
Standard 7 X*
Standard 8 X
Standard 9 X
279
The one area not meeting is Standard 4 (Site Administrator Roles and
Responsibilities). As detailed above, the district’s principals play a minimal role
in planning and conducting the new teacher induction program in this district.
Finally, although the district does meet Standards 2 and 7, this is a holistic
assessment based on the entire year’s worth of NTI activities. Since technology is
not mentioned in any of the nine State of Illinois standards, this does not include
the district’s very minimal incorporation of instructional technology in the NTI
plan. That topic will be discussed in Phase 2 below.
Phase 2: The District’s Incorporation of Instructional Technology in its NTI
Program
To determine what constitutes a high quality new teacher induction
program for Generation Y teachers based on these data collected in this study,
one first must analyze these data related to the district administrators’
understanding of the characteristics of Generation Y and what role these
characteristics play on the district’s new teacher induction program. In addition,
one must analyze the survey responses from the Generation Y teachers in regard
to technology professional development. Finally, one must gauge the needs of
the Generation Y teachers against the opportunities granted them by the district
during their first year of teaching.
280
Thirteen administrators were interviewed for this case study. At the start
of the interview, each one was asked how many years he or she had worked in
the field of education. Based on their answers, this researcher was able to
develop an estimate as to which generation each administrator belonged. As can
be seen in Table 8, five of the 13 belong to the Baby Boomer generation, six
belong to Generation X, and only two belong to Generation Y. Thus, 11 of the 13
administrators were born before 1977 which would place them in a group that
Prensky (2001) calls “digital immigrants.” These are the people who “were not
born into the digital world but have, at some later point in their lives, become
fascinated by and adopted many or most aspects of the new technology” (p. 1).
According to Prensky, “the single biggest problem facing education today is that
our digital immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the
pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new
language” (p. 2).
Consequently, the school district under review is comprised mainly of a
group of administrators who do not belong to the generation of the newest
teachers entering the district. Interestingly, when the 13 administrators were
asked to detail the characteristics of Generation Y (question 12) eight specifically
mentioned how this generation is technologically adept or how they are very
281
comfortable with technology. This was the most common answer regarding
Generation Y characteristics given by the administrators.
The generation gap between the administration and the new teachers is
especially great at the district-level where none of the district office
administrators believe it is important to ask potential new teachers questions
related to the use of instructional technology in the interview process. By not
asking specific questions related to technology, these administrators are making
an assumption that new teachers are entering the field of education already
possessing the prerequisite knowledge to use technology effectively in their
classrooms. The irony in this situation is that four of the six (67%) of these same
district-level administrators stated that their new teachers are not ready to meet
the district’s expectations for the use of technology when they are first hired
(interview question #14). Conversely, six of the seven district principals do ask
interview questions related to the use of instructional technology in the
classroom. These same principals also believe that the new teachers are ready to
use technology their first year in the classroom.
To make sense of these data, one must compare the administrators’
answers regarding Generation Y’s ability to incorporate technology their first
year of teaching to the Generation Y teachers’ feelings regarding their
282
experiences with the technology professional development they received during
their first year in the district. New teacher survey question 26 asked the
Generation Y teachers to rate the school district’s professional development for
classroom technology use during the new teacher induction process when they
were initially hired as a teacher. The majority of the new teachers did not feel as
if the PD for instructional technology was even moderately effective. Only one
teacher (N=43) thought that the technology PD they received was extremely
effective. Based on the Generation Y teachers’ comments, they clearly had
developed strong opinions regarding this lack of professional development. One
teacher stated, “As a new teacher I attended one 1-hour session about technology
and it only glossed over what was available for use and did not explain how to
use the technology provided or how to help my students use the technology
provided.” Another teacher wrote, “We did not get any training on the types of
technology available. A quick run down the list is not effective for someone who
used a different tool in another district, or never used any tools at all” (Table 16).
The artifacts collected as data provide evidence that only one hour of new
teacher professional development (over the course of the entire school year) is
dedicated to the use of technology for instruction. As these data from Figure 27
and Table 16 confirm, the new teachers clearly were dissatisfied with the one
283
hour of PD they received. Generation Y teachers may have grown up as “Digital
Natives” meaning they are native speakers of the digital language of computers,
video games and the Internet (Prensky, 2001), but they are not necessarily
confident in their abilities to use technology for instructional purposes.
Numerous survey questions reinforce these points.
Survey question #9 asked the new teachers to rate their personal level of
technology use before starting their teaching jobs. One hundred percent answered
in the moderate to extremely high level (see Figure 12) with 74% rating
themselves relatively or extremely high. The follow-up question (#10) asked the
new teachers to rate their professional understanding of instructional technology
upon first being hired, and 93% answered at least in the moderate level, with
46% feeling relatively or extremely confident in their abilities. These are
important questions because they can be compared to those data from questions
asking for the amount of time technology is actually used during the school day.
These data from question #14 show that 69% of the new teachers are using
technology at least two hours per day, yet these data from question #15 show
that 90% of the students in these new teachers’ classrooms are using technology
two hours or less (see Figure 15). There appears to be a discrepancy between the
amount of time the new teachers are using technology and the amount of time
284
the students are using technology. One could make the argument that there are
not enough computers available for all of the students, but that would be false.
Question #12 specifically asked the new teachers to rate the level of access their
students had to technology in the classrooms, and 86% answered that the
students have a moderate or relatively high level of access to technology (see
Figure 14). In addition, this specific school district was chosen for this case study
because it is considered an exemplary district in the area of technology.
The new teachers may have felt ready to incorporate technology into their
instruction when first hired, but not all of the administrators would agree with
them. The administrator interviews show mixed opinions regarding the
readiness of new teachers to use technology at the start of their careers (question
14). The majority of the district-level administrators believe that the new
teachers are not ready, while the majority of the principals believe that the new
teachers are ready to incorporate technology into their instructional practices.
Table 21 below details these data.
285
Table 21
Teacher Readiness to Incorporate Technology into their Classrooms at the Beginning of
their Careers
READY to Use
Tech at the
Beginning of
their Careers
NOT Ready to
Use Tech at the
Beginning of
their Careers
District-Level Admins. 2 4
Principals 6 1
When asked if the district does enough to assist new teachers in the area
of educational technology (question 17), the responses were split. Combined,
about half of the administrators said yes, the district does enough while the other
half said no, the district does not do enough. See Table 22 below for these data.
Table 22
The Amount of Assistance Given New Teachers is/is Not Enough
The district
does enough
The district
does NOT do
enough
District-Level Admins. 3 2
Principals 4 3
286
When studying these data, one must ask why the majority of the district-
level administrators feel as if the new teachers are not ready to use technology in
their teaching at the start of their careers, yet, more of these administrators feel as
if the district is doing enough to support these new teachers in technology usage
during their first year of teaching in the district.
Summary of Phase Two
Upon review of these data as a whole in order to answer research question
1, one can see that, overall, the school district participating in this case study is
providing a comprehensive new teacher induction program that is aligned with
the State of Illinois’s standards for effective new teacher induction programs.
However, there are two exceptions. One is related to Standard 4 of the Illinois
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs. In
this instance, the school-level administrators need to take a more active role in
the planning and conducting of the new teacher induction meetings. The second
exception to the high-quality new teacher induction program offered in this
district is in the area of professional development for its Generation Y teachers.
The district needs to incorporate a much more comprehensive approach to
professional development in the area of instructional technology for its new
teachers. The assumption that the district administrators have made regarding
287
the new teachers being ready to incorporate technology into their classrooms and
their instruction would be incorrect based on these data. The bottom line is that
a high quality new teacher induction program for Generation Y teachers must
have numerous layers based on the specific generational needs of its new
teachers in order for it to be successful (Graham, 2009; Hur & Brush, 2009;
Taranto, 2011). The answers to the next research question will address this topic
more specifically.
Research Question 2
What recommendations should be made for all school districts in order for
them to properly train their new Generation Y teachers in the best uses of
instructional technology for planning, instruction, and assessment?
This researcher will provide six recommendations for school districts in
order for them to properly train their Generation Y teachers in the best uses of
instructional technology. These recommendations will come from these data
presented in this case study and from current research on Generation Y and new
teacher induction.
Recommendation 1: District-level administrators must better understand
the characteristics of Generation Y teachers.
288
These data presented in this research study have demonstrated that the
school administrators have varying viewpoints regarding the characteristics
Generation Y teachers bring to the schools. Although the most common answer
to interview question 12 (What do you believe are the characteristics of
Generation Y?) revolved around being more “technology savvy,” not all of the
administrators provided this answer (8 of 13 mentioned technology). However,
the research is clear that those in Generation Y are very technologically adept in
their lives (Behrstock & Clifford, 2009; ; Coggshall, Behrstock-Sherratt, & Drill,
2011; NAS Recruitment, 2006; Rebore & Walmsley, 2010). All school
administrators must be knowledgeable in the technological skills Generation Y
teachers bring to their schools at the start of their teaching careers.
However, there is more to Generation Y than their skills with technology.
In their book Recruiting and Retaining Generation Y Teachers, Rebore and Walmsley
(2010) state that those teachers born within the Generation Y years have shown
the tendencies to:
Communicate more through technology than in person;
Value benefits at work;
Seek career advancement, desire flexibility and higher pay;
Work in teams and possess high energy;
Work hard but also enjoy pleasure;
Can be financially savvy;
Want constant feedback;
289
Work among and with a diverse group of individuals;
Multitask proficiently; and
Like change. (p. 5)
Furthermore, “They (Generation Y) like to plan for the future and take a genuine
interest in the organization for which the work” (Rebore & Walmsley, 2010, p.
36).
These characteristics are listed as positive traits. However, some of the
administrators, especially at the district level, had negative comments
interspersed with more complimentary comments regarding Generation Y. For
example, Administrator 1 stated, “I think they don’t tend to have the same
loyalty to authority or organizations that maybe previous generations had.”
Administrator 2 stated, “The only negative I sometimes see is they don't always
recognize that they're not the only one, that things don't always get tailored just
to your needs.” Administrator 3 feels as if Generation Y is “somewhat naive”
and Administrator 4 stated that “They’re kind of an entitled group” who have
lower expectations of themselves. These comments contradict the characteristics
of Generation Y teachers as presented in the research (Howe & Strouse, 2003;
NAS Recruitment, 2006; Rebore & Walmsley, 2010).
The school principals, on the other hand, presented a more positive and
accurate understanding of the characteristics of Generation Y teachers. More of
290
the principals commented on technology, but they also made accurate statements
on other topics related to Generation Y. For example, Principal 1 said, “They are
passionate about what they do. What they do has to have meaning. They balance
their lives, their work life with their personal life, and their enjoyment seems to
be very important.” Principal 2 specified that they are student focused, eager to
learn, and they accept best practices because it is the right thing to do, and
Principal 5 stated, “I see these teachers are coming in with energy, a willingness
to put in whatever it takes. I think the ones that I’ve hired are student centered.
I’ve hired a lot of teachers, and I believe most of them 95% are still in it, still
energized. This is their profession versus this is their job.” Thus, the principals
who were interviewed perceive Generation Y teachers differently than their
district office colleagues.
Recommendation 2: Interviews must incorporate questions about the use
of instructional technology for planning, instruction, and assessment.
After becoming trained on the characteristics of Generation Y teachers,
school leaders need to incorporate specific questions regarding the use of
technology in teaching. As has been demonstrated in the research above, the
district-level administrators in this study do not ask such questions of teachers
(interview question 1), yet they believe that the new teachers are not ready to use
291
technology upon first being hired (interview question 14). These data
demonstrate that the assumption that one can use technology effectively in
teaching simply because he or she is a member of Generation Y is incorrect.
This contradiction can be eliminated by administrators asking a series of
questions related to technology use which will then lead to meeting the needs of
new teachers at the start of their teaching careers. Asking such questions as
“What technological skills which you have acquired in your previous
experiences will assist you in the use of technology in your classroom?” and
“What would you need from the district administration in order to start the year
incorporating technology into your teaching?”
Conversely, six of the seven school principals who were interviewed for
this research study do ask questions related to technology in their teacher
interviews, and interestingly, six of the seven principals also believed that the
new teachers are ready to use technology when they start teaching in the district.
The postulation here is that these principals are separating out the “non-
technologically adept” candidates during the interviewing process so that the
teachers they hire are those candidates who can “hit the ground running” with
instructional technology. This further proves that interview questions related to
292
instructional technology are crucial for all administrators to be asking all
teaching candidates.
Recommendation 3: Develop a two-year long strand of professional
development in instructional technology for new teachers and incorporate this
into the new teacher induction program.
The artifacts collected as part of this research study documented that one
hour was dedicated to technology over the course of the entire first year of the
new teacher induction program. This one hour of professional development was
presented to the new teachers on the last day of the new teacher induction
workshop week in August. There was no indication in any of the interviews,
surveys, documents, or observations made by this researcher that additional PD
on instructional technology was provided to the new teachers.
Furthermore, throughout the course of the new teacher induction meeting
observations there was no expectation that teachers bring or use technology in
their learning, and, there is no evidence that the new teachers were given an
opportunity to collaborate on their use of technology in their classrooms. This
lack of technology training for new teachers comes on the heels of a school
district that had recently purchased over 3000 iPads for student and teacher use
in the classrooms.
293
The research is clear that Generation Y teachers demand professional
growth and development and have a desire for appropriate workplace
leadership (Treuren & Anderson, 2010). Generation Y teachers also desire
multiple opportunities for collaboration, differentiated and individualized
support, and instructional technology professional development that is current
(Coggshall, Behrstock-Sherratt & Drill, 2011).
Training in instructional technology must be offered to new teachers over
the course of one or more years as part of a school district’s new teacher
induction program. As stated by Administrator 6, when asked about the
implications of the characteristics of Generation Y on new teacher induction
(question 13),
A lot of us educators make the assumption that because these people
come in knowing all this technology, that they automatically know how to
use it for instructional purposes, and I don’t know if that’s really true.
Really, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. Just because teachers who are
coming out of college these days grew up with technology doesn’t mean
they can use it for teaching. If they can’t, then we, as the leaders, have to
train them and help them.
Accommodating the needs of Generation Y teachers in the area of
instructional technology is important, however, it should be offered in the
context of a comprehensive new teacher induction program. Standard 7 of the
Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction
294
Programs (2008) clearly articulates that “Beginning teachers have regularly
scheduled time, provided during the two year program, to participate in ongoing
professional development that is focused on their professional growth to support
student learning.” Instructional technology should be incorporated in the course
of a two-year NTI program just like the areas of classroom management, literacy,
mathematics, and differentiation of instruction.
Because the school year often starts as a “whirlwind” for new teachers,
with these teachers spending a great deal of time developing their classroom
management skills and establishing important routines for behavior and
learning, the recommendation would be to start the year with some instruction
on the functionality of the technology. In other words, train the new teachers on
the hardware they will be using to start the school year. Then, later in the first
semester, incorporate training on instructional technology for planning,
instruction, and assessment.
According to Breaux and Wong (2003) classroom management should be
the main focus of the initial induction activities “because without effective
classroom management, teaching and learning cannot take place” (p. 45). After a
few months, when the new teachers have become more comfortable with their
daily schedules of teaching, school leaders should weave the use of technology
295
for instructional purposes into the new teacher induction program. The specific
topics and modes of professional development for technology will be further
discussed in recommendation 4 below.
Recommendation 4: Survey new teachers regarding their professional
development needs, and then provide differentiated learning opportunities for
them.
In addition to classroom management, Breaux and Wong (2003) suggest
that the following topics be covered in the initial days of new teacher induction.
Lesson planning;
Instructional strategies;
Discipline;
Local policies and procedures;
The first days of school;
Time management;
Working with parents; and
Accommodating individual differences.
Subsequently, these authors suggest that the specific needs of the teachers should
determine future in-service topics. Graham (2009) also identifies the staff
development needs for Generation Y teachers by writing that providers of
professional development for Generation Y teachers should include a shift from
instructor-led, content-based training to a more self-directed process. In order
for administrators to assist new teachers in becoming more self-directed, the new
296
teachers need to be asked what they need in terms of PD. In the current era of
technology and Internet use in schools, online surveys such as Survey Monkey™,
Google Forms™, or Polldaddy.com™ can quickly and easily be used to assess
the needs of the new teachers throughout the first couple months of school.
Another way to assess the instructional technology needs of new teachers is
through the teacher evaluation process. The administrators who are evaluating
teachers can be surveyed as to the needs of the new teachers based on their
observations of and post-observation conferences with new teachers.
When considering the unique characteristics of Generation Y teachers as
defined by Rebore and Walmsley (2010), professional development for this group
should be sensitive of their specific needs as new teachers and learners. For
example, Generation Y teachers embrace feedback and change, thus professional
development is desirable for them, and it is an activity to which school systems
must be committed. Professional development must be "productive for the
teachers - it should not be a repeat of something Generation Y teachers just had
in their teacher training. Having choice for teachers would improve the
outcomes of successful professional development programs" (p. 97). Finally,
Taranto (2011) writes that Generation Y teachers prefer choice and differentiation
in order to address their PD needs (2011).
297
These characteristics lead to the concept of blended, or differentiated,
professional development as part of the new teacher induction process. Figure
35 supports this with data to show that the Generation Y teachers who took part
in this research study would prefer blended PD. This would be contradictory to
the new teacher induction process provided for teachers in the school district
being studied for this research project. In this case, the new teacher induction
facilitator, along with some feedback from the administration, decides the topics
and agendas for all of the new teacher induction meetings over the course of the
first full year of a new teacher’s career in the district. In order to support new
teachers during their first two years in a school district, the district leaders need
to proactively seek input from these teachers in regard to their learning needs
and how best to meet those needs.
Recommendation 5: Incorporate professional development that fits with
the characteristics of Generation Y teachers.
Rebore and Walmsley (2010) explain that currently, the most effective
professional development structure for new teachers is the concept of
professional learning communities. They state that PLCs have an inherent
structure with four major focuses that fits well with the needs of Generation Y
teachers including: (1) learning rather than teaching, (2) collaboration, (3)
298
viewing all members of the community as learners, and (4) self-accountability (p.
97).
Collaboration within a learning community also is a theme developed by
Taranto (2011). In his article "New-Teacher Induction 2.0," Taranto studied the
design, implementation, and evaluation of online learning as part of a new
teacher induction program. The quantitative data generated by Taranto's study
indicated "a strong acceptance of the online community as an effective
component of a new-teacher induction program" (p. 13). Thus, the implications
for Generation Y teachers are clear. "As more and more people who have
experience and preferences in using digital tools enter the teaching field, the
preferred methods of forming professional learning communities will be in the
form of new information and communication technologies" (p. 13).
Generation Y teachers have grown up with social media, and they are
comfortable using such tools as Google Documents, wikis, and Twitter in their
personal and professional lives. This is one of the characteristics that set them
apart from their Generation X and Baby Boomer colleagues. Thus, one can make
the argument that one component of an effective new teacher induction program
should be provided through online study, research, and collaboration with their
new-teacher peers. To be clear, the use of social media and other online tools for
299
new teacher induction and professional development should be in addition to,
and not in lieu of, other methods of teacher in-servicing such as face-to-face
mentoring and group meetings.
Recommendation 6: Principals must play a more involved role in the
planning and conducting of new teacher induction.
Wood (2005) emphasizes that principals have five key leadership roles in
new teacher induction:
1. Culture builder;
2. Instructional leader;
3. Coordinator/Facilitator of mentors;
4. Novice teacher recruiter; and
5. Novice teacher advocate/retainer. (p. 39)
In outlining the importance of principals’ support of induction programs, Bartell,
(2004) writes that:
The support of the site administrator is crucial to the success of the
induction program at that particular school site. Site administrators need
to understand and be supportive of the efforts made on behalf of the new
teachers at their sites. They should understand and support the goals of
the induction program so that their own advice and counseling is
consistent with the goals of the program and the vision of teaching that is
being promoted. They need to support those who will assist and mentor
the novice teachers at their own site. (p. 49)
Standard four of the State of Illinois’s Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for
Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008) clearly states that site administrators
300
lead efforts to create a positive climate for the delivery of all essential program
components. Site administrators and program leadership should collaborate to
ensure that they are well prepared to assume their responsibilities for supporting
beginning teachers in the induction program.
The school district under review in this research met eight of the nine
standards in this state document. The one standard it did not meet was standard
four. Data collected from this research show that the principals play a minor role
in the planning and conducting of the new teacher induction program. The
principals’ main role is to select a mentor for each new teacher. They also carve
out time during the new teacher induction week before school starts for the new
teachers to work in the schools with their mentors, and they often will attend a
new teacher luncheon before the start of the school year. For principals to fulfill
Wood’s key leadership roles in new teacher induction they will need to be more
involved with the new teacher induction process during the course of the entire
school year.
Taking this a step further to the use of instructional technology, the
principals should model the use of technology in their own work and expect new
teachers to use technology in their classrooms. The Nebraska RETC (2006)
clearly articulates that school administrators should:
301
Model the use of technology in their daily work including
communications, presentations, online collaborative projects, and
management tasks;
Expect the use of technology and instruction for all students;
Maintain awareness of emerging technologies and participate in job-
related professional learning technology resources;
Ensure integration of appropriate technologies to maximize learning
and teaching; and
Involve and educate the school community around issues of
technology integration. (p. 5)
By taking a more active and involved role in the planning and conducting of new
teacher induction programs, principals can provide the instructional leadership
in all areas of the school district, including the use of instructional technology.
Research Question 3
What are the implications for school leaders?
School leaders must better understand the characteristics of the new
generation of teachers who have been entering the field of education for the last
few years, and who will be entering the profession in droves over the next 10-15
years. School leaders also must be prepared to change the methods being used
to provide induction activities to their new teachers. There are certain
assumptions that school administrators need to avoid making when planning
new teacher induction programs to meet the needs of the members of Generation
Y. The first one is that today’s university teacher preparation programs are
302
doing a good job in preparing their graduates to incorporate technology into
classroom instruction. The opposite can be observed in the research on pre-
service preparation and in those data collected in this research study.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2007 reported on
education technology used in teacher education programs. In this report,
respondents were asked about the extent to which their institutions’ teacher
education programs for initial licensure taught teacher candidates how to use
technology tools for various purposes, including enhancing or enriching
classroom instruction, understanding individual student learning styles,
assessing individual student progress and challenges, and designing
instructional interventions to individualize student instruction. The results are
listed below:
57% instructed pre-service teachers about how to use technology to
augment classroom instruction;
17% instructed pre-service teachers on employing technology to assess
student achievement;
17% trained pre-service teachers on designing instructional
interventions to individualize instruction; and
15% addressed how to utilize technology to accommodate for various
student learning styles. (p. 10)
303
Those data demonstrate that today’s teacher preparation programs are not
meeting the needs of the of Generation Y teachers who are entering the
profession.
These data from this research study lead to similar conclusions. When
asked to reflect on their university experiences with instructional technology
only 13 of the 36 new teachers (36%) referred to taking at least one technology
class during their undergraduate teacher preparation program. Conversely, 23
of the respondents (64%) made some type of statement about their university
technology preparation being poor or nonexistent (see Table 15 for the complete
set of respondent comments). School leaders cannot assume that incoming new
teachers are ready to incorporate technology simply because they graduated
from a university teacher preparation program in the age of technology.
Furthermore, school leaders cannot make the assumption that the new
teachers who belong to Generation Y are automatically ready to successfully
incorporate instructional technology into their classrooms because they are
digital natives who grew up with technology at their fingertips. These data from
this study clearly articulate that Generation Y teachers want and need
professional development in the use of instructional technology. Figures 12 and
13 illustrate that the majority of the Generation Y teachers in this study believed
304
that their personal and professional skills were moderate to extremely high when
they were first hired, with 85% being moderate or relatively high. These data can
be compared to data in Figure 34 which illustrates that at the end of their first
year of teaching, the Generation Y teachers’ understanding of instructional
technology use in the classroom dropped to 82% moderate or relatively high.
This drop can be attributed to the idea that the Generation Y teachers may have
discovered that they were not as prepared to use technology in their classrooms
as they had originally thought when first hired.
To continue with this train of thought, one needs to see that by November
of their first year, the new teachers answered that their students were using
technology two or less hours of the school day which was significantly lower
than the amount the teachers themselves were using technology in the
classrooms (see Figure 16). Clearly, one can make the assumption based on data
collected, that the Generation Y teachers lost some of their confidence in their
abilities to use technology for instruction with students. The new teachers also
rated the school district’s professional development for classroom technology
during the new teacher induction process as moderately effective to not effective
at all (see Figure 27). Additionally, the majority rated the quality of the
305
technology professional development over the course of the first year in the
district as moderate to extremely low (see Figure 30).
The take-away here is that Generation Y teachers need and want specific
training in the use of instructional technology over the course of their first year of
teaching, regardless of their personal technological skills upon first entering the
profession. As a new teacher’s first year of teaching progresses, he or she will
begin to learn that the technological skills they possess in their personal lives do
not necessarily transfer to the use of technology in their classrooms. This ability
to be reflective regarding their work is what helps to transform novice teachers
into experienced teachers. According to an article titled “Advancing Excellence
in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and
Program Standards,” published by the International Technology Education
Society (2003), Professional Development Standard 6 states that “Professional
development will prepare teachers to be responsible for their own continued
growth” (p. 59). Thus, reflective practitioners will need and want effective PD in
the area of instructional technology.
The third incorrect assumption that school leaders are making is that their
current methods for new teacher induction are fully meeting the needs of
Generation Y teachers. Even with a school district that is considered exemplary
306
in the use of instructional technology to enhance teachers' planning, instruction,
and assessment, the new teacher induction process does not do enough to meet
the technological needs of its new teachers. The research from Graham (2009),
Hur and Brush (2009), Rebore and Walmsley (2010), Taranto (2011) suggests that
Generation Y teachers want professional development, including their new
teacher induction programs, to include more differentiated training based on the
specific needs of individual or groups of Generation Y teachers, more
participation in collaborative online learning communities, and a shift from
instructor-led professional development to a more self-directed approach to PD.
The Generation Y teachers in this study support this in their answer to survey
question 37 where the majority of them called for a blended approach to
professional development (see Figure 35).
The implications for school leaders in new teacher induction, as garnered
from this research study, are clear:
1. Adhere to state requirements regarding new teacher induction
programs similar to the way the case study school district meets eight
of the nine standards as developed by the State of Illinois.
2. Train district administrators in the characteristics of Generation Y
teachers so they are prepared to meet the specific needs of this group
307
of new teachers who have been, and will continue to, enter the
teaching profession.
3. Encourage school principals to take a more active role in the planning
and conducting of new teacher induction programs.
4. Add much more professional development on the use of classroom
technology for planning, instruction and assessment.
5. Extend the new teacher induction process to continue over the course
two years as recommended in Standard 7 of the Illinois Standards of
Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008).
6. Change the methods for new teacher induction so that they are more
aligned with the specific characteristics of Generation Y teachers and
the ways Generation Y teachers want and need to learn, including a
bended approach with online collaboration, differentiated PD, self-
directed learning, and face-to-face meetings in groups and with their
mentors.
Limitations of the Study
While this study attempted to gather data on the best induction programs
for new teachers, there were limitations to this work.
308
1. The study of one school district was limiting in scope. A larger
sampling of school districts may have revealed more information
regarding new teacher induction programs and their focus on
instructional technology.
2. The non-tenured teachers who took part in the survey may have been
reluctant to answer the questions openly and honestly. Although
anonymity was guaranteed, there was the chance that new teachers
were hesitant to answer some of the questions.
3. Not all of the district’s administrators were interviewed. Thirteen of
the 27 district-level administrators and principals (48%) agreed to
participate leaving 14 administrative voices unheard.
4. One of the principals was new to the district, so this person was unable
to answer certain interview questions due to lack of experiences with
the new teacher induction program.
5. One of the district-level administrators worked mostly with computer
hardware and software, so this person was unable to answer certain
interview questions that were related to teaching with technology.
6. There may have been administrators who were reluctant to answer
questions openly and honestly during the recorded telephone
309
interviews. Confidentiality was guaranteed, but there was the
possibility that the administrators were defensive of their induction
program or may not have spoken freely due to fear of ramifications.
7. Only Generation Y teachers were surveyed as opposed to all new
teachers which would include those from the Baby Boomer generation
and Generation X. Although Generation Y teachers will make up the
majority of those participating in new teacher induction programs in
the near future, there will be others participating as well, and these
other teachers may have needs that are different than those identified
for within Generation Y.
8. Generation Y is not homogeneous; Gen Y teachers come from all walks
of life and all different cultures. The research and findings presented
in this dissertation may not represent all Generation Y teachers.
9. With one researcher analyzing these data that was collected, there was
the chance for bias, especially with the researcher's current beliefs and
understandings of technology use in the classroom. Specifically, this
researcher is an elementary school principal who is considered to be a
leader in the use of technology in his work. He has conducted
administrator academy and district-level workshops on this topic, he
310
models the use of technology within his school community, and he
expects teachers to incorporate instructional technology into their
planning, teaching, and assessing of student learning. To help
minimize such bias, the researcher kept a journal throughout the data
collection process. The use of this journal allowed the researcher to
write his ongoing reflections regarding the potential for bias that may
emerge as these data are being collected. The objective was for the
researcher to remain as unbiased as possible while analyzing and
interpreting these data.
Recommendations for Further Research
While the purpose of this study was to (1) deeply study one school district
that is exemplary in the use of instructional technology to enhance teachers'
planning, instruction, and assessment; (2) to determine how this school district
trains its Generation Y teachers in the use of technology; and, (3) to make
recommendations to educational leaders as to the best plans for teacher
induction in the area of educational technology, additional research may be
called for in the following areas:
1. Study other school districts that are considered to have exemplary new
teacher induction programs (based on a specific rubric or set of
311
standards) to see if they incorporate professional development in the
area of instructional technology, and if they do, discover what they
provide to their new teachers in this area.
2. Conduct a similar study to this one which opens the research to all
new teachers as opposed to only Generation Y teachers to learn if those
new teachers in the Baby Boom Generation or in Generation X have the
same needs for technology professional development as Generation Y
new teachers need in their new teacher induction program.
3. Deeply study college and university teacher education programs to
learn what is or is not being taught in the area of instructional
technology for Generation Y pre-service teachers, and then make
recommendations for curricular changes based on these data collected.
4. Complete a comparative study of Generation Y school administrators
to see if their personal knowledge of technology (as digital natives) has
transferred to their use of technology in the areas of instructional
leadership, communication, collaboration, and other aspects of school
leadership.
5. Since this study was limited to an elementary school district, one could
complete a comparative study of high school new teacher induction
312
programs and of new Generation Y teachers using instructional
technology in a high school setting.
6. What does blended professional development look like for Generation
Y teachers? What are the specific P.D. processes of engagement
necessary for Gen Y teachers to improve their use of technology for
instructions?
313
Summary of Findings
In summarizing the findings, the research questions that drove this study
found that the school district under review has developed a new teacher
induction program that meets all but one of the Illinois Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008). Thus, this district
could be used as a model for other districts to follow when developing or
improving their own new teacher induction programs. The only area where this
school does not meet the Illinois standards is in the profound inclusion of site
administrators, namely the school principals, in the planning and conducting of
the new teacher induction program.
Although there is no mention of the use of instructional technology in the
Illinois Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction
Programs (2008), this research has brought to light the need for the inclusion of
technology professional development for new teachers over the entire course of
the new teacher induction process. These data collected as part of this study
demonstrated that the Generation Y teachers in this school district do not feel as
if they have received enough or the proper types of training in the use of
technology in their classrooms upon the start of their teaching careers. This
research study further teased out the need for specific instructional technology
314
training based on the characteristics of Generation Y new teachers who, although
they have grown up in a technological world and are considered to be
technologically adept, are not prepared to use technology for planning,
instruction, and assessment purposes in their classrooms.
In applying this work to the field of educational leadership, six
recommendations were made for all school districts in order for them to properly
train their Generation Y teachers in the best uses of instructional technology.
They are
1. District-level administrators must better understand the characteristics
of Generation Y teachers;
2. Interviews must incorporate questions about the use of instructional
technology for planning, instruction, and assessment;
3. Develop a two-year long strand of professional development in
instructional technology for new teachers and incorporate this into the
new teacher induction program;
4. Survey new teachers regarding their professional development needs,
and then provide differentiated learning opportunities for them;
5. Incorporate professional development that fits with the characteristics
of Generation Y teachers; and
315
6. Principals must play a more involved role in the planning and
conducting of new teacher induction.
Furthermore, the results from this research project have led to the
debunking of some common assumptions made by school leaders. First, the
assumption that today’s pre-service teacher education programs are preparing
Generation Y teachers to incorporate technology into their classrooms is false.
Second, the assumption that Generation Y teachers are able to effectively
incorporate instructional technology into their work as first year teachers because
they are digital natives is false. Finally, the assumption that current new teacher
induction programs are still viable in the age of the Generation Y teacher is false.
Finally, this study has postulated the following implications for school
leaders based on the research and data collected herein:
1. Adhere to state requirements regarding new teacher induction
programs similar to the way the case study school district meets eight
of the nine standards as developed by the State of Illinois.
2. Train district administrators in the characteristics of Generation Y
teachers so they are prepared to meet the specific needs of this group
of new teachers who have been, and will continue to, enter the
teaching profession.
316
3. Encourage school principals to take a more active role in the planning
and conducting of new teacher induction programs.
4. Add much more professional development on the use of classroom
technology for planning, instruction and assessment.
5. Extend the new teacher induction process to continue over the course
two years as recommended in Standard 7 of the Illinois Standards of
Quality and Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Induction Programs (2008).
6. Change the methods for new teacher induction so that they are more
aligned with the specific characteristic of Generation Y teachers and
the ways Generation Y teachers want and need to learn, including a
bended approach with online collaboration, differentiated PD, self-
directed learning, and face-to-face meetings in groups and with their
mentors.
The hope of this researcher is that studies such as this one will have an
impact on district-level leaders who are developing new teacher induction
programs and the school principals who are hiring and training the current
generation of new teachers.
The speed at which instructional technology is advancing is astounding,
and in 10 years teachers and their students will have a whole new assortment of
317
technological tools with which to teach and learn. Nonetheless, we still must live
in the present and prepare our current Generation Y teachers to effectively
incorporate the technology that is available to them in today’s modern
classrooms.
Thus, the goal, via the new teacher induction process, is to hire, train, and
then retain the very best teachers who are able to effectively incorporate today’s
technology into their planning, instruction, and assessment practices in addition
to assisting new teachers’ personal and professional well-being, improving
teaching competence, and most importantly, improving students’ academic
achievement.
318
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE EMAIL REQUEST FOR LIST OF EXEMPLARY DISTRICTS
319
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Assistance with Doctoral Dissertation
From: David Sherman
To: Mary A. Warren, Director
Learning Technology Center One Central
West 40 Intermediate Service Center
Date: 01/20/13
Dear Ms. Warren,
My name is Dave Sherman. I am an elementary school principal in
Deerfield, and I am working on my Doctoral Dissertation through Loyola
University Chicago. For my project, I am looking for school districts in the
Chicago area that would be considered "exemplary" in the use of instructional
technology. I was hoping you might have a list of such districts based on your
work in suburban Cook County. If so, would you be so kind as to forward the
names of these districts to me so I may contact them? If not, do you have any
suggestions as to where I might focus my search to find such districts? Are there
groups or people out there who may be able to assist me?
Any assistance you could provide me would be extremely helpful.
Sincerely,
Dave Sherman
Principal
South Park Elementary School
1421 Hackberry Rd.
Deerfield, IL 60015
847-945-5895 ext. 2102
320
APPENDIX B
RETC DOCUMENT
321
322
323
324
325
326
APPENDIX C
TEACHER SURVEY QUESTIONS
327
Teacher Survey Questions For Generation Y teachers in a district
1. Please mark your year of teaching in this district.
o First
o Second
o Third
o Fourth
2. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
3. Please mark the range of years in which you were born.
o 1976 - 1979
o 1980 - 1984
o 1985 - 1989
o 1990 - 1992
4. What is your highest college degree attained?
o Bachelors
o Bachelors plus 30 hours
o Masters
o Masters plus 30 hours
o Doctorate
5. What level do you teach?
o Pre-k through Grade 2 (Primary)
o Pre-k through Grade 2 Special Education (Primary)
o Pre-k through Grade 2 Bilingual Education (Primary)
o Grade 3 - Grade 5 Regular Education (Intermediate)
o Grade 3 - Grade 5 Special Education (Intermediate)
o Grade 3 - Grade 5 Bilingual Education (Intermediate)
o Grade 6 - Grade 8 Regular Education (Middle/Junior High School)
o Grade 6 - Grade 8 Special Education (Middle/Junior High School)
o Grade 6 - Grade 8 Bilingual Education (Middle/Junior High School)
328
6. Is this your
o 1st teaching position?
o 2nd teaching position?
o 3rd, 4th, or more than 4th teaching position?
7. What is your status in your current district?
o 1st year, non-tenured
o 2nd year non-tenured
o 3rd year non-tenured
o 4th year non-tenured
o Tenured
8. Is teaching your first career or have you changed careers?
o Teaching is my first career
o I worked in a different career before becoming a teacher
9. How would you rate your personal level of technology use before starting
your teaching job in this district? (3A)
o Extremely low
o Relatively low
o Moderate
o Relatively high
o Very high
10. How would you rate your professional understanding (use) of technology
in a classroom setting upon first being hired as a teacher? (3A)
a. Extremely low
b. Relatively low
c. Moderate
d. Relatively high
e. Very high
11. What type of preparation did you receive in your college/university pre-
service program related to technology for planning, instruction, and
assessment?
Text Box
329
12. How would you rate the level of student access to technology in your
classroom? (2A)
a. Extremely low
b. Relatively low
c. Moderate
d. Relatively high
e. Very high
13. How would you rate the level of Curriculum-based technology tools in
your classroom? (2G)
a. Extremely low
b. Relatively low
c. Moderate
d. Relatively high
e. Very high
14. How much time during the school day do you use technology for
instruction? (3A)
o Less than 1 hour
o 1-2 hours
o 2-3 hours
o 3-4 hours
o 4 or more hours
15. How much time during the school day do your students use technology
for learning? (4A)
o Less than 1 hour
o 1-2 hours
o 2-3 hours
o 3-4 hours
o 4 or more hours
16. Please check all of the areas in which you use instructional technology in
your work as a teacher. (Check all that apply.) (3A)
o Direct instruction
o Communication with parents
o Communication with colleagues
330
o Communication with students
o Collaborative projects (e.g. Google Docs)
o Formative assessment (e.g. voting devices)
o Summative assessment
o Connecting/communicating outside the classroom
o Research
o Other ____________________________
17. My students regularly use technology for working collaboratively in
communities of inquiry to propose, implement, and assess solutions to
real world problems. (4A)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
18. My students regularly use technology for evaluating and analyzing their
own assessment information to improve learning. (4A)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
19. My students regularly use technology to publish and effectively
communicate their knowledge with the global community. (4A)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
20. I use instructional technology in new and interesting ways in my
classroom. (4B)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
331
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
21. I regularly provide opportunities for student-centered learning in my
teaching. (4B)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
22. I am a facilitator in collaboration with external entities to develop 21st
century skills (e.g. national or international, business, and/or educational
communities). (4B)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
23. In my work as a teacher, technology is vital to all curriculum areas and is
integrated on a daily basis. (4B)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
24. The school district offers multiple, sequential programs of study in
technology for students. (4C)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
332
25. My students participate in a mentoring program with business and/or
community members. (4D)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
26. Rate the school district's professional development for classroom
technology use during the new teacher training (induction?) process when
you were initially hired as a teacher. (3F)
o Not effective at all
o Minimally effective
o Moderately effective
o Very effective
o Extremely effective
27. Why did you give this rating?
Text Box
28. Was the professional development in the area of: (Check all that apply.)
(3C)
o Hardware use
o Instruction
o Communication
o Collaboration
o Assessment
o Other ______________________________________
29. How much ongoing professional development (PD) did the school district
provide over the course of your first year as a teacher? (3D)
o Extremely low amount of PD
o Relatively low amount of PD
o Moderately amount of PD
333
o Relatively high amount of PD
o Extremely high amount of PD
30. Rate the quality of the professional development in technology you
received throughout your first year as a teacher in the district. (3F)
o Extremely low quality
o Relatively low quality
o Moderate quality
o Relatively high quality
o Extremely high quality
o I have not completed my first year
31. Why did you give this rating?
Text Box
32. Who provided professional development during your first year of
teaching in the district? (Check all that apply.) (3D)
o Superintendent
o Assistant supt. for curriculum and instruction
o Assistant supt. (director) for human resources
o Principal(s)
o Director of technology/21st century skills at the district level
o Technology coordinator(s) at the school level
o Teacher leader/mentor
o Outsourced consultant
o Secretary/Teaching assistant
o Other __________________________________
33. Rate the amount of support you feel you receive from the school
administration in the area of instructional technology. (3B)
o Extremely low amount of support
o Relatively low amount of support
o Moderately amount of support
o Relatively high amount of support
o Extremely high amount of support
334
34. Rate the amount of support you feel you receive from the district
administration in the area of instructional technology. (3B)
o Extremely low amount of support
o Relatively low amount of support
o Moderately amount of support
o Relatively high amount of support
o Extremely high amount of support
35. How would you rate your professional understanding of technology in a
classroom setting upon completion of your first year as a teacher? (2A)
o Extremely low
o Relatively low
o Moderate
o Relatively high
o Very high
o N/A (I have not completed my first year of teaching)
36. How capable do you think you are to mentor a new teacher in the use of
instructional technology in your district? (3D)
o Not capable at all
o Barely capable
o Neutral
o Relatively capable
o Extremely capable
37. How do you best learn as a professional (professional development
options)? (3C)
o Professional development meetings
o Online
o Self-directed
o One-on-one tutoring/assistance
o Blended
38. What do you need now in the area of professional development to
effectively incorporate technology into your instruction?
Text Box
335
APPENDIX D
SEMI-STRUCTURED ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
336
Administrator Interview Questions
Demographic information (Completed by interviewer)
School District
Current Position
Years in Education
Years in this position
Educational Background Masters
Masters+
PhD/EdD
Questions asked (Recorded on an iPad and transcribed by Rev.com.)
1. What technological skills do you look for when hiring new teachers,
especially as they pertain to the use of technology for planning,
instruction, and assessment? (3B)
2. What are the delivery models that your district provides new teachers for
their new teacher induction? (3D)
3. What, if any, is your role in the planning of the new teacher induction
process in your district? (3B)
4. What, if any, is your role in conducting the new teacher induction process
in your district? (3D)
5. What were your experiences with new teacher induction in previous
districts? (3B)
6. Are you pleased with the current new teacher induction process in your
district? Please explain why or why not. (3F)
7. If not, what would you like to see added or changed? (3F)
337
8. What are the basic areas of concentration that are included in your current
new teacher induction plan? (3F)
9. Are there areas that are over-emphasized or could be reduced/eliminated?
(3F)
10. Are there areas that need to be increased or further developed? (3F)
11. Does your district's new teacher induction process extend past the very
beginning of the school year? Why or why not? (3D)
12. What do you believe are the characteristics of Generation Y teachers?
13. What implications do these characteristics have on new teacher induction?
14. Do you feel as if new teachers are ready to meet the district's expectations
for the use of technology in their classrooms when they are first hired?
(3A)
15. What does your district do to prepare new teachers for mastering the
functionality of the technology in their classrooms? (1B)
16. What does your district do to prepare new teachers for mastering the use
of technology for instruction in their classrooms? (1C)
17. Does your district do enough to assist new teachers in the area of
educational technology (functionality or instruction)? Please explain. (1B
& 1C)
18. Is there anything you would add to the technology component of the new
teacher induction process? (3D)
19. Is there anything else that you would like to add to this discussion?
338
APPENDIX E
LETTER OF COOPERATION – DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT
339
Letter of Cooperation
District Superintendent
August 21, 2013
Project Title: New Teacher Induction Programs: A case study of an exemplary
school district and how it prepares its new teachers for the use of instructional
technology in the classroom: Lessons for leadership.
Researcher: David B. Sherman, Doctoral student in the Loyola University
Chicago School of Education
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Marla Israel Ed.D. - Dissertation Research Study: Case
Study
Introduction:
You are being asked to take part in a research study being conducted by David
Sherman for a dissertation study at Loyola University Chicago under the
supervision of Dr. Marla Israel Ed.D., Associate Professor in the School of
Education.
You are being asked to participate because you are a leader of a school district
that has received accolades in the area of instructional technology. Please read
this form carefully and ask any question you may have before deciding whether
to participate in this study.
Purposes:
The purposes of this dissertation are to identify and deeply study one school
district that is considered exemplary in the use of educational technology, to
determine how this school district trains its Generation Y teachers in the use of
technology, and to make recommendations to educational leaders as to the best
plans for teacher induction in the area of educational technology.
Procedures:
If you give consent for your district to participate in this study, you will be asked
to allow me to participate in the following activities:
Administer an online survey to consenting Generation Y teachers in your
school district (approximately 20 minutes);
340
Conduct semi-structured focused interviews with the district
administrators (approximately one hour);
Complete observations of one or more new teacher induction sessions;
Complete an artifact review of school district documents related to
instructional technology use and new teacher induction processes.
Risks/Benefits:
There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this research beyond
those experienced in everyday life.
There may be a benefit to having an outside educator review your new teacher
induction program, especially in the area of instructional technology. This study
may lead to improved new teacher induction and improved use of technology
for instruction in the classrooms. In addition, this case study may have
implications for school leaders in other school districts.
Confidentiality:
The following will be guaranteed in order to maintain strict confidentiality
throughout this research project and beyond:
Research notes and any documents collected will be stored and made
available only to the researcher. When not in use, notes and documents
will be secured, and upon completion of the research project will be
destroyed.
Pseudonyms will be used in lieu of actual names when developing this
dissertation study.
A transcription service will be contracted to transcribe the interview
responses, and the transcriber will be required to sign a confidentiality
agreement.
Voluntary Participation:
Participation in this study is voluntary. If you, the district administrators, and
the Generation Y teachers do not want to participate, none of you will have to do
so. All participants will be free to not answer any question of withdraw from
participation in the study at any time without penalty.
Contacts and Questions:
If you have questions about this research study, please feel free to contact:
341
The researcher:
David Sherman at [email protected]/ (847) 644-2619
The dissertation director:
Dr. Marla Israel at [email protected]/ (312) 915-6336
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may
contact the Loyola University Office of Research Services at (773) 508-2689.
Statement of Consent:
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand the
information provided above, have had an opportunity so ask questions, and
agree to allow your district administrators and Generation Y teachers to
participate in this research study. You will be given a copy of this form to keep
for your records.
Participant's Signature Date
Researcher's Signature Date
342
APPENDIX F
LETTER OF COOPERATION – DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
343
Letter of Cooperation
District Administrator
September 25, 2013
Project Title: New Teacher Induction Programs: A case study of an exemplary
school district and how it prepares its new teachers for the use of instructional
technology in the classroom: Lessons for leadership.
Researcher: David B. Sherman, Doctoral student in the Loyola University
Chicago School of Education
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Marla Israel Ed.D. - Dissertation Research Study: Case
Study
Introduction:
You are being asked to take part in a research study being conducted by David
Sherman for a dissertation study at Loyola University Chicago under the
supervision of Dr. Marla Israel Ed.D., Associate Professor in the School of
Education.
You are being asked to participate because you are a leader of a school district
that has received accolades in the area of instructional technology. Please read
this form carefully and ask any question you may have before deciding whether
to participate in this study.
Purposes:
The purposes of this dissertation are to identify and deeply study one school
district that is considered exemplary in the use of educational technology, to
determine how this school district trains its Generation Y teachers in the use of
technology, and to make recommendations to educational leaders as to the best
plans for teacher induction in the area of educational technology.
Procedures:
If you give consent for your participation in this study, you will be asked to
allow me to conduct a semi-structured interview with you that will last
approximately 45 minutes. This interview can take place in a location and at a
time that is most convenient for you.
344
Risks/Benefits:
There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this research beyond
those experienced in everyday life.
There may be a benefit to having an outside educator review your new teacher
induction program, especially in the area of instructional technology. This study
may lead to improved new teacher induction and improved use of technology
for instruction in the classrooms. In addition, this case study may have
implications for school leaders in other school districts.
Confidentiality:
The following will be guaranteed in order to maintain strict confidentiality
throughout this research project and beyond:
Research notes and any documents collected will be stored and made
available only to the researcher. When not in use, notes and documents
will be secured, and upon completion of the research project will be
destroyed.
Pseudonyms will be used in lieu of actual names when developing this
dissertation study.
A transcription service will be contracted to transcribe the interview
responses, and the transcriber will be required to sign a confidentiality
agreement.
Voluntary Participation:
Participation in this study is voluntary. If you, the district administrators, and
the Generation Y teachers do not want to participate, none of you will have to do
so. All participants will be free to not answer any question of withdraw from
participation in the study at any time without penalty.
Contacts and Questions:
If you have questions about this research study, please feel free to contact:
The researcher:
David Sherman at [email protected]/ (847) 644-2619
The dissertation director:
Dr. Marla Israel at [email protected]/ (312) 915-6336
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may
contact the Loyola University Office of Research Services at (773) 508-2689.
345
Statement of Consent:
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand the
information provided above, have had an opportunity to ask questions, and
agree to be interviewed for the purpose of gathering data for this research study.
You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.
Participant's Signature Date
Researcher's Signature Date
346
APPENDIX G
SCRIPT FOR TELEPHONE INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE –
SUPERINTENDENT
347
Script for Telephone Invitation to
Participate in Research
Superintendent
Hello, my name is David Sherman, and I am a doctoral student in the
Educational Leadership program at Loyola University Chicago. School districts
are hiring an increasing number of Generation Y teachers, most of whom have
grown up in a technological world. I am interested in this specific group of
teachers' use of technology in their first few years of teaching. More specifically,
I am interested in the new teacher induction programs that school districts are
providing to their newly hired teachers in order to prepare these teachers for the
incorporation of instructional technology in their classrooms.
As the superintendent of the district, I am seeking your consent for the
following:
to contact your recently hired Generation Y teachers to administer a short
anonymous survey;
to ask the district level administrators for their consent to an interview
that would last approximately one hour in duration;
to review district documents related;
to observe one or more new teacher induction meetings in the near future.
There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this research beyond
those experienced in everyday life. Everything you and other district employees
say will be held in strict confidence and pseudonyms will be used in lieu of
actual names when developing the dissertation study. Are you willing to allow
me to conduct this study within your school district?
348
If the response is "Yes:"
Thank you very much. I will send you the survey questions, the interview
questions, and a "Cooperation to Participate in the Study" form via the
U.S. Mail. Once you return the form, I will contact you to schedule a time
to meet and discuss the timeline for completing the surveys and
interviews. If you have any questions, please email me a
[email protected] or call me at 847-644-2619. Thank you and have a
good day.
If the response is "No:"
Thank you for your time. If you change your mind or have any questions
regarding this research study, please email me at
[email protected] or call me at 847-644-2619. Have a good day.
349
APPENDIX H
EMAIL SOLICITING ADMINISTRATOR PARTICIPATION INTERVIEW
350
September, 2013
Dear District Administrator,
As a doctoral candidate at Loyola University Chicago, I am conducting research
for my dissertation entitled: New Teacher Induction Programs: A case study of an
exemplary school district and how it prepares its new teachers for the use of instructional
technology in the classroom - Lessons for leadership. The purpose of this study is to
identify what constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program in the
area of instructional technology.
More specifically, I am studying new teachers who are part of Generation Y.
That is, teachers who were born between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s. You
are receiving this email because you were identified by your school district as
someone who has taken an active role in your district's new teacher induction
program.
I am asking you to please consider participating in a brief face-to-face or
telephone interview with me during which time I will ask you questions about
your experiences with the school district's new teacher induction program. The
survey should take no more than 45 minutes to complete. The interview will be
audio recorded and transcribed by a professional transcription service.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. This interview will be
held at a location that is most convenient for you, and it will be strictly
confidential. If you are willing to participate, please reply to this email stating
such no later than October 1, 2013. I then will contact you via email or telephone
to set up a time for the interview. If you choose not to participate, please send a
"No" reply at your earliest convenience.
If you have questions about the study, please feel free to email them to me at
[email protected], or call me at 847-644-2619. You also may contact Dr. Marla
Israel, my dissertation director at [email protected]/ (312) 915-6336.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may
contact the Loyola University Office of Research Services at (773) 508-2689.
I thank you in advance for you participation in this research study.
351
Sincerely,
David Sherman
Doctoral Candidate, Loyola University Chicago
352
APPENDIX I
EMAIL SOLICITING TEACHER PARTICIPATION – SURVEY
353
October 29, 2013
Dear Teacher,
As a doctoral candidate at Loyola University Chicago, I am conducting research
for my dissertation entitled: New Teacher Induction Programs: A case study of an
exemplary school district and how it prepares its new teachers for the use of instructional
technology in the classroom. The purpose of this study is to identify what
constitutes a high quality new teacher induction program in the area of
instructional technology.
More specifically, I am studying new teachers who are part of Generation Y.
That is, teachers who were born between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s. You
are receiving this email because you were identified by your school district as
someone fitting the definition of a Generation Y teacher.
I am asking you to please consider participating in a brief online survey that will
ask you questions about your experiences with the school district's new teacher
induction program and your experiences embedding instructional technology
into your work as a teacher. The survey should take no more than 20 minutes to
complete.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. This survey will be
anonymous and strictly confidential. By completing this survey no later than
December 1, 2013 you are agreeing to participate in this research study. If you
choose not to participate, please send a "No" reply at your earliest convenience.
If you have questions about the study, please feel free to email them to me at
[email protected], or call me at 847-644-2619. You also may contact Dr. Marla
Israel, my dissertation director at Dr. Marla Israel at [email protected]/ (312) 915-
6336.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may
contact the Loyola University Office of Research Services at (773) 508-2689.
I thank you in advance for you participation in this research study.
354
Sincerely,
David Sherman
Doctoral Candidate, Loyola University Chicago
355
APPENDIX J
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT FOR TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES
356
Confidentiality Agreement
for
Transcription Services
I, _________________________________, transcriptionist, agree to maintain full
confidentiality in regard to any and all audio files and documentation received
from David Sherman related to his doctoral study: New Teacher Induction
Programs: A case study of an exemplary school district and how it prepares its new
teachers for the use of instructional technology in the classroom.
Furthermore, I agree:
1. To hold in strictest confidence the identification of any individual who
may be inadvertently revealed during the transcription of recorded
interviews, or in any associated documents.
2. To not make copies of any audio recordings or computerized files of the
transcribed interview texts, unless specifically requested to do so by
David Sherman.
3. To store all study-related recordings and materials in a safe, secure
location as long as they are in my possession.
4. To return all recordings and study-related documents to David Sherman
in a complete and timely manner.
5. To delete all electronic files containing study-related documents from my
computer hard drive and all other back up devices.
I am aware that I can be held legally liable for any breach of this confidentiality
agreement, and for any harm incurred by individuals if I disclose identifiable
information from the recordings and/or files to which I will have access.
Transcriber's name (printed): ________________________________________
Transcriber's signature: _____________________________________________
Date: ________________
357
APPENDIX K
ILLINOIS STANDARDS OF NEW TEACHER INDUCTION
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
REFERENCE LIST
Achinstein, B., & Athanases, S. (2006). Mentors’ knowledge of equity and
diversity: Maintaining a bifocal perspective on new teachers and their
students. In Achinstein & Athanases (Eds.), Mentors in the making:
Developing new leaders for new teachers (pp. 38-54). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Algozzine, B., Gretes, J., Queen, A., J., & Cowan-Hathcock, M. (2007). Beginning
teachers’ perceptions of Clearing House: A Journal of Educational their
induction program experiences. The Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(3), 137-
143.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the potential: Retaining and
developing high-quality new teachers. Washington, DC. Retrieved on May 12,
2013 from http://www.all4ed.org/files/TappingThePotential.pdf
An, Y,. & Reigeluth, C. (2011-12). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-
centered classrooms: K–12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and
support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. National Commission on Teaching and
America's Future. 2007. The cost of teacher turnover in five school districts: A
pilot study. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/ data/
ericdocs2sql/content_- storage 01/0000019b/80/2a/49/03.pdf
Bartell, C. (2004). Cultivating high-quality teaching through induction and mentoring.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bartlett, L., & Johnson, L. (2010). The evolution of new teacher induction policy
support, specificity, and autonomy. Educational Policy, 24(6). Retrieved
from http://epx.sagepub.com/content/24/6/847
370
Behrstock, E., & Clifford, M. (2009, February). Leading gen Y teachers: Emerging
strategies for school leaders. TQ Research and Policy Brief. National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, U.S. Department of
Education.
Blashki, K., Nichol, S., Jia, D., & Prompramote, S. (2007). The future is old:
Immersive learning with generation Y engineering students. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 32(4), 409-520.
Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., McKinley, E., Bell, B., Barr, H. et al. (2000). The
Effects of curricula and assessment on pedagogical approaches and on educational
outcomes. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coggshall, J. G., Behrstock-Sharratt, E., & Drill, K. (2011). Workplaces that support
high-performing teaching and learning: Insights from generation Y teachers.
Naperville, IL: American Institute for Research.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A
review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis, 8(1).
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & D'Amour, L. (2012). Understanding school districts as
learning systems: Some lessons from three cases of complex
transformation. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 373-399.
deMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through
experience. In K. deMarrais, & S.D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research
(pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
371
District XX. (2013). District XX Induction/Mentor Handbook.
District XX. (2013). New Teacher Induction Orientation Handbook.
Duncan, A., & Martin, C. U.S. Department of Education, (2010). A blueprint for
reform: Reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act.
Retrieved from Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
website: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum
to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.
Glazerman, S., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Isenberg, E., Lugo-Gil, J., et al.
(2008). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Results from the first year of
a randomized controlled study. NCEE 2009-2034. Washington DC: Institute of
Education Sciences. Retrieved May 11, 2013 from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20094034.pdf
Goldrick, L., Osta, D., Barlin, D., & Burn, J. (2012). Review of state policies on
teacher induction. Retrieved from www.newteachercenter.org
Graham, C. (2009). Investing in early career general staff. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 175-183.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., Lewis, L., Tice, P., & U.S. Department of Education. (2010).
Teachers' use of technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040).
Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco C A: Jossey-Bass.
Hanover Research. (2012). New teacher induction programs. Retrieved from
www.hanoverresearch.com
372
Hanover Research. (2013). Technology integration frameworks for the K-12
curriculum. Retrieved from www.hanoverresearch.com
Hovorka, D., & Rees, M. (2009). Active collaboration learning environments: The
class of Web 2.0. In H. Scheepers, & M. Davern (Eds.), Proceedings of the
20th Australasian Conference on Information Systems: ACIS 2009 (pp. 550-
561). Melbourne, AU.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new
generation on campus. Great Falls, VA: LifeCourse Associates.
Hur, J., & Brush, T. (2009). Teacher participation in online communities: Why do
teachers want to participate in self-generated online communities of K-12
teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 279-303.
Illinois Public Act 093-0355. (2004, January 1 effective). New teacher induction and
mentoring. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?name=093-0355
Illinois School Code 2006 [105 ILCS 5/21-2 (c) (2) (A)].
Illinois State Teacher Certification Board (ISTCB). (2008). Introduction and purpose
for the Illinois standards of quality and effectiveness for beginning teacher
induction programs.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-
12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 58(2), 137-154.
Ingersoll, R. (2001, Fall). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An
organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-
534.
373
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality? Educational
Horizons, 81(3), 146-152.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher
shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). Essential conditions.
Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers
International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). ISTE.nets the
standards for learning, leading, and teaching in the digital age. In ISTE.
Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards
International Technology Education Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in
technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and
program standards. Retrieved from
http://www.iteea.org/TAA/PDFs/AETL.pdf
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith , R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 horizon report.
Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2010-Horizon-Report.pdf
Kelley, L. (2004). Why induction matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 438-
448.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The logic
of methods (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S., Liu, E., & Peske, H.G. (2002). “Lost at
sea”: New teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers
College Record, 104(2), 273-300.
Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to
374
pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 74(4),
575-614.
LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J., with Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative
design in educational research (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in professional communities. New York:
Teachers’ College Press.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lovely, S., & Buffum, A. (2007). Generations at school: Building an age-friendly
learning community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
McCain, T., & Jukes, I. (2001). Windows on the future: Education in the age of
technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Minarik, M., Thornton, B., & Perreault, G. (2003). Systems thinking can improve
teacher retention. The Clearing House, 76(5), 230-234.
Miranda, & Russell. (2011). Predictors of teacher-directed student use of
technology in elementary classrooms: A multilevel SEM approach using
data from the USEIT study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
43(4).
NAS Recruitment Communications. (2006). Generation Y: The millenials. Ready
or not, here they come (NAS Insights). Cleveland, OH. Retrieved May 18,
2013 from
http://www.nasrecruitment.com/talenttips/NASinsights/GenerationY.pdf
375
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Educational technology in teacher
education programs for initial licensure: Statistical analysis report. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional
standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington,
D.C.
NEA Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (2002). Using data to
improve teacher induction programs. Retrieved on May 15, 2013 from
http://www.neafoundation.org/downloads/NEA-sing_Data_Teacher_
Induction.pdf
Nebraska Department of Education. (2006). Nebraska technology plan certification
site. Retrieved December 28, 2012, from http://edweblab.unl.edu/retc/
New Teacher Center. Retrieved from
http://www.newteachercenter.org/induction-programs
O’Sullivan, M., & Deglau, D. (2006). Principles of professional development.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 441-449.
Parsad, B., Jones, J., Greene, B., & U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Internet
access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2003 (NCES 2005-015).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework
Patton, M. O. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
376
Pence, H., & Macintosh, S. (2011). Refocusing the vision: The future of
instructional technology. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2),
173-179.
Petrie, K., & McGee, C. (2012). Teacher professional development: Who is the
learner? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 58-72.
Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to
change. Millennials: A Portrait of the Generation Next. Retrieved on
December 7, 2013 from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/
millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. MCB
University Press, 9(5), 1-6.
Prensky, M. (2012, May-June). Teaching the right stuff. Educational Technology, 1-
3.
Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations: The sourcebook for a new workplace.
Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
Rebore, R., & Walmsley, A. (2010). Recruiting and retaining generation Y teachers
(1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Reynolds, L., Bush, E.C., & Geist, R. (2008). The Gen Y imperative.
Communication World, 19-22. Retrieved May 18, 2013 from
http://emerginghealthleaders.ca/Reynolds-GenY.pdf
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 905-947). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
377
Schaefer, L., Long, J., & Clandinin, J. (2012). Questioning the research on early
career teacher attrition and retention. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 58(1), 106-122.
Schram, T. H. (2003). Conceptualizing qualitative inquiry. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Smolin, L., & Lawless, K. (2011). Evaluation across contexts: Evaluating the
impact of technology integration professional development partnerships.
Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(3), 93-99.
Snyder, T., Dillow, S. & U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Digest of Education
Statistics 2009 (NCES 2010-013). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
State of Nebraska. Rubric of essential technology conditions. (2008). Retrieved from
http://www.education.ne.gov/techcen/documents/NERETC.pdf
Stanulis, R., Burrill, G., & Ames, K. (2007). Fitting in and learning to teach:
Tensions in developing a vision for a university-based induction program
for beginning teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 135-147.
Stanulis, R., & Floden, R. E. (2009). Intensive mentoring: Intensive mentoring as a
way to help beginning teachers develop balanced instruction. Journal of
Teacher Education, 60, 112-122.
Staron, M., Jasinski, M., & Weatherly, R. (2006). Life-based learning: A strength-
based approach for capability development in vocational and technical education.
Darlington, NSW: TAFE NSW.
378
Steckleberg, A., Li, L., Liu, X., & Kozack, M. (2008). A rubric for self-assessment
of essential technology conditions in schools. Computers in the Schools,
25(1-2), 81-89. Retrieved on July, 2012 from http://cits.haworthpress.com
Strong, M. (2005). Research brief: Mentoring new teachers to increase retention. Santa
Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center.
Stobaugh, R., & Tassell, J. (2011). Analyzing the degree of technology use
occurring in pre-service teacher education. Educational Assessment,
Evaluation, and Accountability, 23, 143-157.
Taranto, G. (2011). New-teacher induction 2.0. Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 28(1), 4-16.
Treuren, G., & Anderson, K. (2010). The employment expectations of different
age cohorts: Is generation Y really that different? Australian Journal of
Career Development, 19(2), 49-62.
Unleashing the potential of educational technology. (2011). Washington, DC: The
Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors.
Vannatta, R. A., & Beyerback, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of
technology integration among education faculty and preservice teachers.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 132-148.
Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, M., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012).
Comparing technology-related teacher professional development designs:
A multilevel study of teacher and student impacts. Association for
Educational Communications and Technologies. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com.flagship.luc.edu/article/10.1007/s11423-012-9243-
8/fulltext.html
379
Watlington, E., Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Felsher, R. (2010). The high cost
of leaving: An analysis of the cost of teacher turnover. Journal of Education
Finance, 36(1), 22-37.
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms:
1994-2005. (NCES 2007-020). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on May 25, 2013
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf
Wiebke, K., & Bardin, J. (2009). New teacher support: A comprehensive induction
program can increase teacher retention and improve performance. Journal
of Staff Development, 30(1), 34-39.
Wong, H., & Asquith, C. (2002, December 1). Supporting new teachers. American
School Board Journal, 189(12), 22-24.
Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (n.d.). Teachers: The next generation. ASCD Express.
Retrieved on December 27, 2012 from
http://www.newteacher.com/pdf/ascd_express_wong_teachers.pdf
Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators’ roles in
novice teacher induction. American Secondary Education, 30(2), 39-62.
Wood, A. L., & Stanulis, R. N. (2009). Quality teacher induction: Fourth-wave
(1997-2006) induction programs, p. 3. The New Educator, 5. Retrieved on
May 15, 2013, from http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/
nclb/title_ii/a_teacherquality/quality-teacher-induction.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
380
VITA
David Sherman grew up in Skokie, Illinois which is a northern suburb of
Chicago. He is the son of a retired Chicago Public Schools principal and a retired
Skokie school secretary, so education has been in his blood since birth.
David earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education
from Northern Illinois University in 1985. David earned his Masters of
Education degree in Educational Administration and his Type 75 administrative
certificate from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1992, and in
the fall of 2010 he began the Doctoral program in Educational Administration
and Supervision at Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois.
David has taught second and fifth grades at the elementary level and sixth
and seventh grades at the middle school level. He was a junior high school
assistant principal in Wilmette, Illinois for two years. He was the principal of
Jackson Elementary School in Elmhurst, Illinois for nine years, and he is
currently serving in his ninth year as the principal of South Park Elementary
School in Deerfield, Illinois.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
The Dissertation submitted by David B. Sherman has been read and approved by
the following committee:
Marla Israel, Ed.D., Director
Associate Professor, School of Education
Loyola University Chicago
Janis Fine, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, School of Education
Loyola University Chicago
Eric Twadell, Ph.D.
Superintendent, Adlai Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, Illinois